GIJim Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 I am not a historian by trade, meerly a game playing physicist so please dont flame me if my 'facts' ar't completely straight. It is my understanding that a 'majority', if not more, of crews turned off their gyrostabilizers as they proved more of a nusience that help. It is also my understanding that only (roughly half) of the armored vehicles that could mount a .50cal were actually able to because the airforce had first priority in receiving them. If this is indeed the case (please coorrect me if I'm wrong) is this correctly modled into the allied tanks, or do ALL allied tanks have these devices, and have them working properly? Just wondering. It is quite a boost to the allied tanks in the game, but may not relect history correctly. Someone please set me straight. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 Jim, IIRC you are about half right. It is the case that only a subset of the vehicles that could be equipped with Gyrostabiliziers were. Many (most?) Shermans just plain never had them installed. Many that did have them installed had crews that either disabled them (they could be dangerous to the loader) or did not know how to use them. CM certainly over-represents them. Note that the same issue applies to many of these special items, like Schurzen and Nahvewhateveritiscalled on German vehicles. I have not heard anything about the M2 .50 being in short supply however. Quite the opposite actually. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 Pfft, you're just worried that my gyrostabilized, Ma Deuce-packing uberShermans will make itty-bitty Panzer-morsels out of your Marders and Hooplahs and SpF-40s and whatever other silly-sounding chuckwagons you have lumbering around the battlefield in our PBEM game. Think your Nahvertiwonkawhatsits will save you from my strapping, corn-fed, nimble All-American boys? You'll have the turn when I get off work, and then you'll know the dread sensation that is THE ADVANCE OF THE PAPER-THIN AFV'S!!!!!!! TREMBLE! TREMBLE AND QUIVER! ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dNorwood Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GIJim: I am not a historian by trade, meerly a game playing physicist <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW. There's two of us? Amazing! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is my understanding that a 'majority', if not more, of crews turned off their gyrostabilizers as they proved more of a nusience that help. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I asked this question as well (it was a half-remembered line from the old Squad Leader game in my case). I was told that the stabilizers WERE a great help and were generally left on (but note above comment about loader), but that crews weren't adept at maintaining them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just wondering. It is quite a boost to the allied tanks in the game, but may not relect history correctly. Someone please set me straight. Jim<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My reading of the forum gives me the impression that BTS recognizes that this is somewhat unrealistic and an advantage for the allies, but is a necessary compromise. The "invincible 0.50" is another issue though - not so much as availability (I have no idea) as to lethality. My current PBEM opponent (who I only now find out is a SERIOUS student of the war - GULP!) and I have one for the ueber weapon file. Suffice it to say (at least until the fight is over!) that even as the beneficiary, I find it seems out of whack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 GIJim: I am not a historian by trade, meerly a game playing physicist GNorwood: WOW. There's two of us? Amazing! No....there's three of us. That's enough to start a CM addiction help group for physicists Damn! all this proposal writing is getting in the way of CM. Do ya think the NSF is interested in supporting some gaming...I mean modeling... of WWII small unit tactics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 I think that in a fairly recent discussion on the topic of gyrostabilizers, BTS commented that they were indeed overrepresented in terms of availability, but that they were somewhat underrepresented in capability by way of compensation. So instead of having some tanks with no stabilizers, some with fully-functional stabilizers, and some with poorly-maintained or disabled stabilizers, instead we have all tanks with partially-efective stabilizers. I may be misremembering something here, though -- a search for gyrostabilizer over the past couple weeks would probably find the thread I'm referring to. ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dNorwood Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: Damn! all this proposal writing is getting in the way of CM. Do ya think the NSF is interested in supporting some gaming...I mean modeling... of WWII small unit tactics? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm...probably not NSF. But my dissertation was paid for by the Navy (ONR), the Air Force (AFOSR), and DARPA (before they became PC and turned into ARPA), so there's GOTTA be money for this somewhere!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 Well, this is a thread frmo April '99, but it probably still applies. www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000114.html <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The gun system you're referring to is called a gyrostabilizer and yes we are including it. Although the system was effective on the testing grounds, in the field it often was not utilized for a variety of reasons, including poorly-trained crews, or even intentional sabotage. Apparently many company commanders wanted to have a gyrostabilizer-equipped tank as the lead vehicle in the column. Knowing that the "point man" is usually the first to take a hit, many tankers happened to "lose" a few key parts to their gyrostabilizers, thus disqualifying themselves from lead-tank duty. "Gosh Lieutenant, I swear the thing was working yesterday. Maybe a magnet fell out of it or something. Too bad we don't have any replacement parts, huh?" So Combat Mission simulates the gyrostabilizer, but its benefits (added accuracy when firing on the move) are lower than one might expect just by looking at the equipment itself. American tanks will have an advantage when firing on the move, but only a modest one. (An exception may be made for the M26 Pershing. Our research indicates that the gyros in these babies were used as they should be, and so we may give that tank a more noticeable advantage for firing on the move). Charles <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ben Galanti amateur searchonaut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts