Jump to content


US Gyrostabiliser Issues


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

Donward #21 Posted May 25 2015 - 22:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 36829 battles
  • 7,067
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011
I think the US should have focused on making more make-believe tanks like the E-50 so Alt-history guys would have more to fap over.

Meplat #22 Posted May 25 2015 - 22:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 6542 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostDonward, on May 25 2015 - 14:19, said:

I think the US should have focused on making more make-believe tanks like the E-50 so Alt-history guys would have more to fap over.

The U.S. had plenty to chose from, but seems some people just won't be satisfied if it's not "Natzee" flavored hystery-fic.



stalkervision #23 Posted May 25 2015 - 22:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 45798 battles
  • 7,034
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

MP your ethnocentrism is showing..

 

My question please...



Priory_of_Sion #24 Posted May 25 2015 - 22:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View Poststalkervision, on May 25 2015 - 16:18, said:

getting in fifty percent or less of your first shots means nothing when they do absolutely nothing as the german anti crew of the 37 mm found out with the t-34. In fact it just tell the enemy where to look for you.

That's isn't what the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory founded in their studies about the M4 v. German tanks. First shot and position(defending v. advancing) are the two things that decide nearly all tank battles that the US fought. 



Meplat #25 Posted May 25 2015 - 22:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 6542 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Poststalkervision, on May 25 2015 - 14:28, said:

 

 

My question please...

Has no bearing on the thread's subject, no matter how many times you try to make it.

It only serves for you to insert more pop-history fanwank.

 



stalkervision #26 Posted May 25 2015 - 22:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 45798 battles
  • 7,034
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostMeplat, on May 25 2015 - 16:35, said:

Has no bearing on the thread's subject, no matter how many times you try to make it.

It only serves for you to insert more pop-history fanwank.

 

 

sure it doesn't.

stalkervision #27 Posted May 25 2015 - 22:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 45798 battles
  • 7,034
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on May 25 2015 - 16:35, said:

That's isn't what the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory founded in their studies about the M4 v. German tanks. First shot and position(defending v. advancing) are the two things that decide nearly all tank battles that the US fought.

 

  depends on the armor and if the tank firing the first shot can penetrate it. That's just a fact. I believe this is one of the things you can actually see like real life in WOT.

 

I bet you have got the first shot in many a time on a tank and it came back.. BOUNCE Then you were treated to a shot that didn't bounce.


 

 welcome to being a actual Sherman tank commander. :)

 

 or a Panzer three commander and a kv 1


Edited by stalkervision, May 25 2015 - 22:53.


Priory_of_Sion #28 Posted May 25 2015 - 23:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View Poststalkervision, on May 25 2015 - 16:49, said:

 

  depends on the armor and if the tank firing the first shot can penetrate it. That's just a fact. I believe this is one of the things you can actually see like real life in WOT.

 

I bet you have got the first shot in many a time on a tank and it came back.. BOUNCE Then you were treated to a shot that didn't bounce.


 

 welcome to being a actual Sherman tank commander. :)

 

 or a Panzer three commander and a kv 1

Even Panzer IIIs would be fine in the vast majority of their combat if they fired first, as they would be likely facing T-26s and BTs instead of KVs. 

 

M4s never had anything like the KV to fight in terms of complete armor superiority. Tigers and Panthers had thick frontal armor, but their armor was still vulnerable to 75 mm guns for the most part. 



Meplat #29 Posted May 25 2015 - 23:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 6542 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Poststalkervision, on May 25 2015 - 14:47, said:

 

sure it doesn't.

 

Look here slapchop, the only person who brought up the nonsense about "hurr Sherman baounce", is you.

You are parroting the same oft-debunked crap that one can find on a crappy TV show, or the discount bin of a used book store, and it's about as amusing as watching a mentally handicapped toddler draw on a wall with their own feces.

 

 

 

 

 



Belesarius #30 Posted May 25 2015 - 23:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 7951 battles
  • 3,586
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

Ugh.  Wehraboo stink. Gods, it's gonna take forever to wash this off..

 



STEELEAGLE #31 Posted May 25 2015 - 23:34

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20011 battles
  • 39
  • [MUG-W] MUG-W
  • Member since:
    03-08-2011

View PostAutobotMech, on May 24 2015 - 07:43, said:

The Tank commander I interviewed a few years back was able to still walk me through the steps of calibrating a gyrostabilizer that he had taught back in 45.

 

Did he say anything about the speed of the tank also makes a difference?.

 

The reason I asked, is even in the M60A3TTS series tanks, which I first served on, we were told as drivers, to figure out what your tank's "Stabe Speed" was. Normally it was between 8 and 13 MPH for the M60. To much or too little speed could throw off the stabilizer even just a bit.  This comes from the rumbling of the Tank, the change in ground,  a number of other things.  And the stabilizer in early US Tanks were considered kind of crude by even by 1940's Tank Tech Standards.  But they felt it would give our Tank and Tank Destroyer crews an advantage, so be it.  But it was training of the early stabilizers that was time consuming.    I knew a Old Tanker at Fort Knox who was in the last part of WW 2 in Europe from the middle of the Bugle on, severed 25 years in the Army, Started out in M4A3(76) when to Easy Eights.  Fought in Korea in the M26, and last served M48A2.  He told me,  the Gyrostabilzer didn't really become useful until you had some sort of Computer fire control in the tank.  Be it the early mechanical/analog fire control systems, or the later electronic systems in the M60A1 Rise series.  This was mainly it became more of a drivers issue to know your "Stabe Speed".  when you have only one Gyrostabilzer trying to keep the gun on target, it can be overwhelming for it and the computer.  One of those factors is the speed of the tank and they had the same problem in the early tanks.

 

 

This of course change with the M1 Series, with it, advance Computer Fire control package, and 5 Gyrostabilzers,  feeding data to the fire control computer. As my instructor told us when transiting from M60A3TTS to the IPM1 and M1A1,  throw out the notion of Stabe speed, the faster you go, the Stabler you are.


Edited by STEELEAGLE, May 25 2015 - 23:42.


Walter_Sobchak #32 Posted May 26 2015 - 00:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

Geez.  The Chieftain goes and creates a nice thread based on some interesting archive documents, and StalkerVision has to come and create a poop-storm about typical German tank myths.  

 

 

 



Meplat #33 Posted May 26 2015 - 02:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 6542 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostSTEELEAGLE, on May 25 2015 - 15:34, said:

 

Did he say anything about the speed of the tank also makes a difference?.

 

The reason I asked, is even in the M60A3TTS series tanks, which I first served on, we were told as drivers, to figure out what your tank's "Stabe Speed" was. Normally it was between 8 and 13 MPH for the M60. To much or too little speed could throw off the stabilizer even just a bit.  This comes from the rumbling of the Tank, the change in ground,  a number of other things.  And the stabilizer in early US Tanks were considered kind of crude by even by 1940's Tank Tech Standards.  But they felt it would give our Tank and Tank Destroyer crews an advantage, so be it.  But it was training of the early stabilizers that was time consuming.    I knew a Old Tanker at Fort Knox who was in the last part of WW 2 in Europe from the middle of the Bugle on, severed 25 years in the Army, Started out in M4A3(76) when to Easy Eights.  Fought in Korea in the M26, and last served M48A2.  He told me,  the Gyrostabilzer didn't really become useful until you had some sort of Computer fire control in the tank.  Be it the early mechanical/analog fire control systems, or the later electronic systems in the M60A1 Rise series.  This was mainly it became more of a drivers issue to know your "Stabe Speed".  when you have only one Gyrostabilzer trying to keep the gun on target, it can be overwhelming for it and the computer.  One of those factors is the speed of the tank and they had the same problem in the early tanks.

 

 

This of course change with the M1 Series, with it, advance Computer Fire control package, and 5 Gyrostabilzers,  feeding data to the fire control computer. As my instructor told us when transiting from M60A3TTS to the IPM1 and M1A1,  throw out the notion of Stabe speed, the faster you go, the Stabler you are.

 

There would definitely be a "sweet spot", where the suspension is at it's optimal load for that terrain, and I'm betting it's pretty slow..

 

As to it being "crude" weell, not really, when you compare it to other vehicles of it's era. 

 

 

It was a fairly compact and well thought out design, much like the power traverse systems used in most U.S. tanks.  When you look at the onboard systems in use by other nations, much of what the U.S. was putting in it's AFV's was very well made and engineered.

 

Here's an example. This is the turret traverse mechanism from a Tiger, and is pretty typical of the power traverse systems used by German armor.

 

 

And this is the Logansport power traverse from the M3 Medium.  Note how much more compact it is.

Also, it operates independently of the vehicle's main engine.

 

 

ETA- Somewhere I have some maintenance instructions and diagrams for the stabilizer used in the M4. If and when I come across it I'll try and post them.  I


Edited by Meplat, May 26 2015 - 02:48.


stalkervision #34 Posted May 26 2015 - 03:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 45798 battles
  • 7,034
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostSTEELEAGLE, on May 25 2015 - 17:34, said:

 

Did he say anything about the speed of the tank also makes a difference?.

 

The reason I asked, is even in the M60A3TTS series tanks, which I first served on, we were told as drivers, to figure out what your tank's "Stabe Speed" was. Normally it was between 8 and 13 MPH for the M60. To much or too little speed could throw off the stabilizer even just a bit.  This comes from the rumbling of the Tank, the change in ground,  a number of other things.  And the stabilizer in early US Tanks were considered kind of crude by even by 1940's Tank Tech Standards.  But they felt it would give our Tank and Tank Destroyer crews an advantage, so be it.  But it was training of the early stabilizers that was time consuming.    I knew a Old Tanker at Fort Knox who was in the last part of WW 2 in Europe from the middle of the Bugle on, severed 25 years in the Army, Started out in M4A3(76) when to Easy Eights.  Fought in Korea in the M26, and last served M48A2.  He told me,  the Gyrostabilzer didn't really become useful until you had some sort of Computer fire control in the tank.  Be it the early mechanical/analog fire control systems, or the later electronic systems in the M60A1 Rise series.  This was mainly it became more of a drivers issue to know your "Stabe Speed".  when you have only one Gyrostabilzer trying to keep the gun on target, it can be overwhelming for it and the computer.  One of those factors is the speed of the tank and they had the same problem in the early tanks.

 

 

This of course change with the M1 Series, with it, advance Computer Fire control package, and 5 Gyrostabilzers,  feeding data to the fire control computer. As my instructor told us when transiting from M60A3TTS to the IPM1 and M1A1,  throw out the notion of Stabe speed, the faster you go, the Stabler you are.

 

thanks for the very informative post buddy, it is what I suspected. That is why I mentioned the speed of the tank and the terrain and how it was missing from the army test the chief posted.

 

 

 kind of a funny analog to this. Early police traffic radar needed to be run at a even speed and in a certain speed range on flat terrain to get a stable Doppler reading for the patrol car to acquire a opposite lane target on the move in "moving mode"

 New more advanced digital traffic radar have no such limitations.


Edited by stalkervision, May 26 2015 - 03:08.


STEELEAGLE #35 Posted May 26 2015 - 15:57

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20011 battles
  • 39
  • [MUG-W] MUG-W
  • Member since:
    03-08-2011

View PostMeplat, on May 25 2015 - 20:46, said:

As to it being "crude" weell, not really, when you compare it to other vehicles of it's era. 

 

 

It was a fairly compact and well thought out design, much like the power traverse systems used in most U.S. tanks.  When you look at the onboard systems in use by other nations, much of what the U.S. was putting in it's AFV's was very well made and engineered.

 

 

 

True even the Russian were impressed with the level engineering with the lend lease Sherman we sent them.   Didn't think much of the Armor or gun but loved the level of reliability.

 

 

View Poststalkervision, on May 25 2015 - 21:01, said:

 

thanks for the very informative post buddy, it is what I suspected. That is why I mentioned the speed of the tank and the terrain and how it was missing from the army test the chief posted.

 

 

 kind of a funny analog to this. Early police traffic radar needed to be run at a even speed and in a certain speed range on flat terrain to get a stable Doppler reading for the patrol car to acquire a opposite lane target on the move in "moving mode"

 New more advanced digital traffic radar have no such limitations.

 

Thing is, doesn't matter how good the police radars are, if they are not calibrated everyday, you can beat it in court.  That is why Traffic Speed Camera really don't hold up in court, they have no way of Calibrating them day in and day out.    

 

As for today's Gyrostabilzer needing calibration, that not preformed any longer,  It done automatically when the tank is turned on.  


Edited by STEELEAGLE, May 26 2015 - 15:58.


Meplat #36 Posted May 26 2015 - 16:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 6542 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

Okay, tired of wading through manuals, have some stab stuff from the T17/Staghound.  It's effectively the same system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



AutobotMech #37 Posted May 26 2015 - 17:04

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 210
  • [-BDS-] -BDS-
  • Member since:
    03-14-2011

View PostSTEELEAGLE, on May 25 2015 - 23:34, said:

 

Did he say anything about the speed of the tank also makes a difference?.

 

The reason I asked, is even in the M60A3TTS series tanks, which I first served on, we were told as drivers, to figure out what your tank's "Stabe Speed" was. Normally it was between 8 and 13 MPH for the M60. To much or too little speed could throw off the stabilizer even just a bit.  This comes from the rumbling of the Tank, the change in ground,  a number of other things.  And the stabilizer in early US Tanks were considered kind of crude by even by 1940's Tank Tech Standards.  But they felt it would give our Tank and Tank Destroyer crews an advantage, so be it.  But it was training of the early stabilizers that was time consuming.    I knew a Old Tanker at Fort Knox who was in the last part of WW 2 in Europe from the middle of the Bugle on, severed 25 years in the Army, Started out in M4A3(76) when to Easy Eights.  Fought in Korea in the M26, and last served M48A2.  He told me,  the Gyrostabilzer didn't really become useful until you had some sort of Computer fire control in the tank.  Be it the early mechanical/analog fire control systems, or the later electronic systems in the M60A1 Rise series.  This was mainly it became more of a drivers issue to know your "Stabe Speed".  when you have only one Gyrostabilzer trying to keep the gun on target, it can be overwhelming for it and the computer.  One of those factors is the speed of the tank and they had the same problem in the early tanks.

 

 

This of course change with the M1 Series, with it, advance Computer Fire control package, and 5 Gyrostabilzers,  feeding data to the fire control computer. As my instructor told us when transiting from M60A3TTS to the IPM1 and M1A1,  throw out the notion of Stabe speed, the faster you go, the Stabler you are.

Yeah he did, said the gunner couldn't reliably hit when going over 10 mph, and then you should hope it was a bunker. Granted when I last spoke to Wally I was more interested in his M8 deployment then grilling him about the Gyro.



MaDuese #38 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 19:48

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 6276 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    06-24-2015

View Poststalkervision, on May 25 2015 - 22:49, said:

 

  depends on the armor and if the tank firing the first shot can penetrate it. That's just a fact. I believe this is one of the things you can actually see like real life in WOT.

 

I bet you have got the first shot in many a time on a tank and it came back.. BOUNCE Then you were treated to a shot that didn't bounce.


 

 welcome to being a actual Sherman tank commander. :)

 

 or a Panzer three commander and a kv 1

 

Lovely theoretical scenario based on theoretical data you have not shown or proven.

on paper, the panther was a far more powerful tank than a Sherman. more shell proof armor, better AT gun and much higher velocity shell allowed it to hit targets at extreme ranges.

The tiger and its successors also had these advantages except that they were slow, making them better tank killers in a head on fight, theoretically

 

however their real life performance of these tanks was abysmal, when shot at by the short 75mm gun on the Sherman or the 76 on the T34, the frontal glacius(the strongest armor on the tank) was known to spall though it was not penetrated. the fragmentation and weakening of the armor often resulted in a penetration from a second shell of equal power. this and other factors is what lead to the commonly accepted notion/theory or idea that whoever got off the first shot would usualy win since the crew would be badly stunned by the hit and the driver and or radioman would often be knocked out by the first shell, if it hit the frontal galcius. a hit anywhere else often resulted in a penetration or injury to the turret crew members(commander, gunner, loader, the more important people).  Overall the Germans reported a spike in tank crew casualties while they were using the heavier tanks.

 

This however ignores he biggest flaw in these tanks, they ignore the number one purpose of a tank and flunk at the secondary purpose. primarily,  a tank should be able to move fast enough to cover enough ground during a penetration to capture the supply lines cutting of the enemies front line infantry from supply and exploit the breakthrough to surround large groups of enemy combatants while holding off security screens and withstanding TD ambushes and counterattacks. Secondarily they needed to be able to kill enemy infantry fast and provide suppresive fire for infantry to take strongly held enemy positions.  Panthers and Tigers 1 and 2 both failed at these roles

Ignoring bridge problems

The panther (suffering an average 10-15% casualties from breakdowns "after" the biggest mechanical issues were fixed) could move at a good enough speed to exploit a breakthrough but didn't do well against infantry counterattacks and performed worst against American TDs(I will cite the chieftain on this one).  the reason for this was the gun, the extreme length of the gun meant its HE rounds carried little high explosive and the result was it was not effective against infantry (a unit comprising 80-90% of most armies) also a lack of agility meant it could not maneuver to change position in the face of a counterattack. The lack of maneuverability came from the drive train snapping if the driver attempted to accelerate rapidly.  Overall, the tanks only usefulness came when an enemy was over 1500 meters away, in tanks, and had no cover, otherwise the tank was more expensive than it was worth.

Tigers are another brand of failure, They cannot exploit breakthroughs and don't handle counterattacks of any kind well. their near inability to react to changing situations dew to slow speeds meant that they could only really be used in defensive posture using their armor and long range gun to hopefuly hold an area while being unable to rapidly redeploy in case the enemy attacked elsewhere or from a different direction. their ability to support infantry was however pretty good as they had larger guns and better armor, when supporting infantry this meant that the tank had infantry to soften any changing situation allowing the tank to react in time.

 

By contrast, the Sherman had none of these difficulties, it was fast, reliable, and killed infantry well. The stabilizer it carried(which is the real subject of this forum) allowed it a real chance at addressing ambushes and counterattacks it would find along the way.

 

The purpose of a tank is to kill everything in its chosen path to victory, towards the end Germany built tanks specializing in killing tanks but were un-adept to deal with the basic jobs a tank was suppose to handle.

 

Another thing you can see in WOT is the Heavy tanks inability to get back to the cap in time because he is to slow.

And the heavy tanks often cannot save themselves if caught out of position

 

also by the time the Germans were field the bigger ones, American tankers had wet ammo racks, good non spalling high quality armor that kept the crew alive, and the more effective 76 mm M1A2 that allowed it to pen the front of most of the heavy german tanks first time(though yes, it "could" bounce).  overall american tank crews had a higher survival rate than any other major nationality of ww2 with a casualty per penetrating shot hitting the tank at around 5%(germany came in second with 20-30%(early war was very good, got really bad later), soviets in second at 30-35%(cramped spaces and limited escape routs), and brits in last at 50-70%(30-50 in Sherman since they did a lot of dumb stuff in there like not wearing helmets and adding extra ammo into the compartment spaces)(dont ask about their tanks(bad...))

 

The kv1 was a feared soviet weapon in the early war that had only limited tactical use since its slow speed meant any breakthrough it created could be blocked by 88s(as often happened) and the Germans would gun them down until they withdrew.

The Germans conquered Europe on the pz3 and 4, the extra weight added by the armor on the newer designs meant that they could not continue to use there organizational tactical advantages over the Russians and could not keep up with Americans on the battlefield.

 

My apologies if a rambled a bit and if there are any mistakes, i will correct any pointed out to me.

Edit, without a stabilizer, guns larger than 40mm could not be aimed to hit anything on the move.  The British actually were known to shoulder mount the 40mm guns on their shoulders to fire at close range targets while moving


Edited by Thereddogmanofdoom, Aug 31 2016 - 19:51.


shapeshifter #39 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 20:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17861 battles
  • 2,861
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

holy thread necro batman!

 


Semi related. Canadians putting the stabilizer through it's paces in a 75mm armed Ram I think.

 



Spector668 #40 Posted Sep 01 2016 - 03:02

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18852 battles
  • 103
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

(necro bolster post)

Was the gyro-system used on that Ram Canadian-sourced or provided, or was it a US-sourced unit?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users