Do Tanks Die Too Quickly In CM?

[Slapdragon]

The Hellcat was an outstanding tank. Watch the thing, and it never shoots going at a galloping pace -- but I cannot say that it shooting at the speeds it does in not accurate because I have never had one shoot at real high speeds..

The Hellcat's speed was its armor, which is how it destroyed 10 enemy tanks for each Cat killed (based on toe kicking, Hellcat claims were much higher).

Standard Hellcat practice was to flank enemy tank concentrations located by air recon, and attack at "speed". According to Captain Thomas Evans, the Hellcat would attack on the move "like shooting ducks" and would rely on the high rate of fire of their 76mm ("we could shoot 15 rounds off in a minute") and firing at close range while moving to keep German tanks off balance. They also used shoot and scoot techniques.

Other tank destroyer commanders felt that shooting on the move was "difficult" but that the 76mm was "easy to hit with."

The Hellcat had drive governors that were almost always removed. They could move faster than 55 mph and often did, but crew "got banged around a lot." Crew were not above setting up hasty ambushes by using camoflauge and then retreating as they fired.

Sources:

Zaloga, Steven. (1985). American Tank Destroyers of World War Two (TANKS ILLUSTRATED NO.19). London: Arms and Armour Press.

Evans, Thomas J. and others. (1995). Reluctant Valor : The Oral History of Captain Thomas J. Evans, United States Third Army, 4th Armored Division, 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion). Latrobe: Saint Vincent College Press.

[StellarRat]

"Also, I have just been told on the back-channel that Soviet SOP was to fire on the move. Maybe they even did hit sometimes???"

This makes sense since the Soviets were always trying to get to close range where their tanks had a chance to hit something and their numbers would come into play. Also, there is a better chance of getting flank and rear shots when you overrun the enemy.

As far as firing on the move goes, my gut feeling is that it would very difficult to hit anything unless you were moving very slowly. If I remember correctly, the Tobruk rules didn't allow you fire main guns unless you were stopped for half a turn (I think) and that was in the relatively flat desert. I do believe you could use MGs with a penalty while moving. I always thought those rules made sense.

[gunnergoz]

From my recollection of numerous WW2 readings, I feel safe in saying that firing from the move was done in WW2 but it was not expected to hit much except at very close range. It was much more common to shoot at a moving target, however, and most if not all tank sight reticules have provision for leading a target at different ranges.

The gyrostabilizer on the Sherman series was often disconnected by the users as it didn't seem to accomplish much for them. It was stabilized in elevation only and so would only be useful if one was advancing on a target which was directly in front of the tank.

Sorry to see all the flamewar going on here... :confused:

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:

This makes sense since the Soviets were always trying to get to close range where their tanks had a chance to hit something and their numbers would come into play.

[snip]

the Tobruk rules didn't allow you fire main guns unless you were stopped for half a turn (I think)

[snip]

I always thought those rules made sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously they would put the Soviet armour at a disadvantage by not allowing them to carry out their SOP though. Also, I am quite certain (my memory might play tricks on me) that the Pommies used shoot&scoot in the desert, so the rules would also not allow historical recreation of those battles. Which maybe connected to the way that Tobruk handled hit probabilities, not that I know how it did that.

[Username]

Slopdraggin is now posting with refs!!!!! He should be the topic of one of those daytime talk shows "Stop me before I post again!". Hope your boss is satsfied with you.

Just to defend myself, I am not collecting welfare OR unemployment (yet). I was given a severance of 4 weeks, had a vacation check and theres a waiting week on top of all this before I could collect unemployment. So there we have Sloppy saying typically insulting things based on assumptions. And assumptions and prejudgice go hand in hand.

He insulted Chinese people. Insinuated that all Chinese restAUrants (I hope he knows that restaurants in China are not chinese restaurants, they are just restaurants) serve cats and other stuff. This is an insult to Chinese restaurants in the US and Chinese people. He then assumes that just because my wife is Asian, that she could possibly know what Chinese people eat (In restaurants in China). He is becoming the poster boy for the ugly american.

He then trys to cover it up because he saw a guy do it. He won't address the issue and now it appears he is some kind of online-aholic that can't stop posting at work (federally paid too).

If he apologizes again to me (he has previously accused me of being racist and some other things and rescinded), then I will drop this.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Time to time? How many times today? 8 or 9? In this thread alone? How much surfing research and shopping to go along with that? Should fed workers get faster connections in the faint hope that they may get SOME work done?

Get to work.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Lewis, I am home right now. I am working Morning and Evening today to get some studio time in, but I am sure the DOJ appreciates your comments. Actually, I do not have any way to post to this forum at work, except at lunch when I sit in the library and screw around with a computer outside the firewall.

My University job was better in this regards because I could grade papers and work on other things at the same time, but it was way more hours. As a professor I worked 60 hours a week, for the government I rarely work more than 50.

So, you have said three times you are bowing out. You do that more than a Hollywood Diva.

[Username]

08:26 AM 11:32 AM 11:36 AM 12:11 PM 12:13 PM 12:32 PM 01:34 PM 01:50 PM Lunch Claim

So you lunch for two hours? Must be nice. Well, we will miss you tonight cause you wont be in the Library will you?

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz:

From my recollection of numerous WW2 readings, I feel safe in saying that firing from the move was done in WW2 but it was not expected to hit much except at very close range. It was much more common to shoot at a moving target, however, and most if not all tank sight reticules have provision for leading a target at different ranges.

The gyrostabilizer on the Sherman series was often disconnected by the users as it didn't seem to accomplish much for them. It was stabilized in elevation only and so would only be useful if one was advancing on a target which was directly in front of the tank.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been discussed before and you are probably right.

As a control engineer, let me say that without good sensors, digital electronics, etc, this technology would not work very well in a vibrational nightmare like a tank.

It would most likely be good for spraying the coax MG at treelines, hitting barns with HE from a couple hundred yards max.

The main problem is drift and adjustment. On a big massive object like a battleship, with slow rolling waves, it would be adequate servo technology. In a shake box like a tank its a service nightmare. Its main drawback is the correction-lagging in that its response to a change is not fast enough before the next reversal of motion kicks in. Its always behind the ball. A real advantage might be that it would set up the shot so that when the tank stopped, it was already lined up and quick minor adjustments could attain a hit.

The sherman actually was a cadillac compared to T34s and other tanks with steel tracks. The rubber tracks and rubber rimmed wheels of the shermans were better than most. On a road, driving slow, firing at a target directly ahead of it, it might have been able to fire AP better than most other tanks on the move. But so what, it was moving directly at the target.

lewis

[c3k]

Guys, girls, and others,

Let's get this gyrostabilizer thing straight. Yes, some Shermans were equipped with them. All the gyro was able to do was correct the height adjustment of the barrel. In other words, it kept the barrel at the same elevetion regardless of terrain undulations as the tank moved. Any longitudinal (side to side) adjustment still had to be done by the gunner. Let's think about this for a minute. If the gyro tank is moving perpendicular to the target, the gunner has a continuously changing lead angle to compute. Odds of hitting? Not very good. Usefullness of previous rounds for next round corrections? Not very. Okay, remove that tangential movement by having the gyro tank moving directly towards the target. With a continuously shortening range, what good does a fixed gun elevation do? Not much.'

Okay, now let's put yourself in the tank. You've got the gyro engaged (not very likely since this assumes that the gyro worked upon delivery, has been adjusted in the field, spare parts are on hand, the crew is trained in its use, and it hasn't broken down lately). Now, you're in the turret with the 75mm gun. The tank is ripping across some field, bouncing up and down. You're bracing yourself as best you can. What's that damn gun doing just inches from your head and chest? Well, it's breech is swinging up and down as violently, if not more so, than the tank. Me, (as well as many actual crews according to unit hisories), would just disconnect the damn thing before it kills me.

Modern analogy: familiar with the Soviet generation of tanks with just 3 crewmembers? They replaced the loader with a hydraulic auto-loader. Do you know how many gunners had their left arms ripped off and shoved into the breech? Lots. The solution was to disable the device.

Ken "unstable at the moment" McManamy

[Gen-x87H]

God you can tell that CM has landed into the hands of the more general populus. It seems like almost every post as of late turns into some kind of flame war

The price to pay for popularity............

Gen

[Geier]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Nice to see the CM sycophants are still hard are work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, we're fine. How is WW2Online coming along for you? I heard you were enchanted by it. A game that could do with a few "sycophants" I expect. Have fun!

c3k: I didn't know that accidents with the auto-loader in the T-72 were common. So you mean the gunner had to load and fire? That's an expensive way to make junk metal...

I've never seen anything fire and hit in Fast mode yet but if any tank/td could do it I expect it was the Hellcat.

I would still assume that it would slow down to fire and that there is no way they could get off 15 rounds a minute while going all out either.

But I can't prove that so I'll just assume CM has it down pat.

[c3k]

Geier,

Yes, the T-72 gunner had to do it all. The auto-loading contraption was supposed to get the selected round, load it, close the breech and standby. Imagine that hydraulic linkage moving around, rising, dropping, spinning, gripping. Given the option of either having my arm ripped off or having to double as loader, I'd choose the latter option.

Ken

[Fred]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

God you can tell that CM has landed into the hands of the more general populus. It seems like almost every post as of late turns into some kind of flame war

The price to pay for popularity............

Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gen, Lusername is well known for his attitude to take EVERY bait and start a flame war. The ONLY reason that this guy is not banned is, from time to time, he acts like a consent being.

And yes, this is the price of doing business

Fred

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:

[QBThis makes sense since the Soviets were always trying to get to close range where their tanks had a chance to hit something and their numbers would come into play. Also, there is a better chance of getting flank and rear shots when you overrun the enemy.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the early ancounters in the East, with the T-34, I think the roles were reversed. The Germans had the thin armor and wimpy guns, (37s and 50mms), and were angling for flanks on the Russkis. The T-34 was doing the stand-off plinking.

The whole equipment picture changed a lot over 4 years. Guderian was urging the Germans to adopt some sort of gun stabilization system by the end, not knowing that the engineers had already considered and rejected gyro-stabilizers for the 88 due to size constraints.

INVESTIGATIONS IN GERMANY BY Tank Armament Research

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred:

Gen, Lusername is well known for his attitude to take EVERY bait and start a flame war. The ONLY reason that this guy is not banned is, from time to time, he acts like a consent being.

And yes, this is the price of doing business

Fred<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So thats the story. People bait me and its a reaction on my part? Here I was thinking it was soemthing I was doing..

Fred, for a guy that has such a low member number, errrrr, do you have any bit of a clue whats going on?

Lewis

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by c3k:

Guys, girls, and others,

Let's get this gyrostabilizer thing straight. Yes, some Shermans were equipped with them. All the gyro was able to do was correct the height adjustment of the barrel. In other words, it kept the barrel at the same elevetion regardless of terrain undulations as the tank moved. Any longitudinal (side to side) adjustment still had to be done by the gunner. Let's think about this for a minute. If the gyro tank is moving perpendicular to the target, the gunner has a continuously changing lead angle to compute. Odds of hitting? Not very good. Usefullness of previous rounds for next round corrections? Not very. Okay, remove that tangential movement by having the gyro tank moving directly towards the target. With a continuously shortening range, what good does a fixed gun elevation do? Not much.'

Okay, now let's put yourself in the tank. You've got the gyro engaged (not very likely since this assumes that the gyro worked upon delivery, has been adjusted in the field, spare parts are on hand, the crew is trained in its use, and it hasn't broken down lately). Now, you're in the turret with the 75mm gun. The tank is ripping across some field, bouncing up and down. You're bracing yourself as best you can. What's that damn gun doing just inches from your head and chest? Well, it's breech is swinging up and down as violently, if not more so, than the tank. Me, (as well as many actual crews according to unit hisories), would just disconnect the damn thing before it kills me.

Ken "unstable at the moment" McManamy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres some info you are missing. Crews that used them would use the coax 30 cal as an indicator. A 1940's laser if you will.

As the 30 cals started to strike the enemy tank, the commander would order the fire.

So for the 76mm sherman, whose main gun velocity closely matched the 30 cal, this could be used out to 5-800 meter range. The 75mm was probably shorter.

This took experience. It took gyros dialed in. If the russians used them on shermans, who knows.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

Russian Shermans were models without Gyros (generally) although I am not sure if all had them removed. They were expensive, took some special repair work to keep going (not abig deal for an American fighting formation) and properly used were a great boon. They were so important that, contrary to popular belief, they were soon added to every major tank built after World War Two. The Centurion had two way stabilization, as did the Patton and the Super Sherman. In battle they were used in advance and retreat, and gunners would fire their weapons like skeet guns, leading targets by feel. The stabilizer was more like a steady arm in shoot than anything else, and was far from useless. Note that they not only survived, but prospered.

That did not mean they were perfect. They took getting use to, they got out of wack, and green crews were sometimes found with the systems dialed in wrong. Still, they were such a major advantage that main battle tanks post war would eventually all use them.

[RCHRD]

I don't know if it's been brought up yet but Rommel wrote in his book about ordering his tanks (France 40) to fire right and left, on the move, even without a target.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RCHRD:

I don't know if it's been brought up yet but Rommel wrote in his book about ordering his tanks (France 40) to fire right and left, on the move, even without a target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, with HE, to scare out the troops he was over running. That early in the war terror was a major weapon, which is what that amounted to.

[Battlefront.com]

Alright, if the crap isn't knocked off between various parties, this thread will be locked up tight. Now...

I am not really sure what all the hub-bub is about. A fact that has not been brought up here, but *has* been mentioned by us every single time this gyro thing has come up, is that CM gives a VERY small (tiny even) on the move firing bonus to a tank that has it. I'm not exactly sure how much, but it was made purposefully lower than the Aberdeen test results suggest it was capable of. The reason why is mostly because we assume that the state of the gyro system "in theater" was not as good as when being used in Aberdeen.

As for firing on the move, it was SOP to do so if the desired result was to suppress, confuse, or scare the enemy being targeted. When on the retreat or the attack, it had its place. For the Soviets it appears to have been SOP to fire while on the move. However it was not expected to claim a hit, at least not in the average circumstance with the average hardware and the average crew training. Do CM tanks fire too often when on the move? I personally don't think so, but we will of course hear what the beta folks have to say about this prior to releasing CMBB.

Back to the original question:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It just seems to me that tanks in this game die too quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is realistic. Read up on tank battles and notice how quickly tanks get knocked out. Look at pictures, especially in the East, and see how close burning wrecks are from each other. I know I have seen more than a few pictures of entire Soviet tank platoons eliminated in within meters of each other.

Think about it... if a tank can fire even 6 rounds a minute, and is generally expected to secure a hit on the 3rd or 4th shot, how long will that target last? Less than a minute. Even if you multiply that by a factor of TEN, you still come up with 10 minutes of life expectency once a tank has come under fire. Obviously this is a gross generalization, but I think some folks greatly underestimate how brutal warfare is. Same for anything, including infantry. One second you are standing in a foxhole, the next you are sprinkled all over it. War is brutal, never forget that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If CM is going to error on one side or the other, I'd rather have them make tanks a little less vulnerable to first shot knockouts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A search of this BBS will yield far more threads where people are complaining that gunnery is too sloppy rather than too precise. When have had huge debates in such threads and came out feeling quite confident that CM's gunnery and balistic elements are fair representations of reality. There are no changes planned for CMBB in this regard.

Steve

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

INVESTIGATIONS IN GERMANY BY Tank Armament Research<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Mark IV, nice to see some actual info coming out of this discussion.

Checking out the AFV interiors web site, I came up with this:

From the 'Pershing' page:

"Interestingly, the M3 gun as fitted into the Pershing had no stabilization equipment, although the 105 howitzer support version of the vehicle, the M45, did have elevation stabilization. Perhaps Sherman crew's less than enthusiastic reports about the stabilizer in that AFV convinced the designers to forgo similar equipment in the M26 turret."

From what I remember way back when, Steve said that information on the effectiveness of US gyro stabilization in WWII in combat was confusing and contradictory. They did have a copy of a factory test which showed the device working well, and so they decided to give an advantage, but he stressed that it was small. It is possible too much of an advantage was given.

My feeling is that while gyros did become an important post-war feature in tanks eventually, this does not mean that they were any good in WWII. Electronics, servo mechanisms, and tank suspensions have come a long way since then.

[PJungnitsch]

Well guess who posted while I was writing that one up....

[Battlefront.com]

Hi machineman,

Actually, the test results about the gyro were from the Army's own tests conducted down at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The test conditions were apples to apples and showed that the gyro did yeild a significant increase in accuracy. But as I said above, this was not a field test.

Oh, and some of the thoughts about gyro effectiveness are probably confused by earlier systems that were installed in and around 1942 which were not very reliable. The ones issued in 1944/45 were improved versions.

We feel the evidence (which includes veteran reports in the field and other logical arguments) clearly indicates that the system did have a benefit to firing on the move. How much can be debated until we all die of old age, but a benefit itself does not appear to be questionable. In fact, Aberdeen tests with a different gyro system proved a big disapointment under the similar (the same?) testing circumstances, so it is pretty certain that the Army was not afraid to reject something that didn't actually yield positive results.

As for why the M26 might not have had the system installed, I'd say it probably had to do with the rushing of the project to completion. There was no gyro system for the 90mm gun already on hand.

Steve

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: There was no gyro system for the 90mm gun already on hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve, that may well be right. Also Mark IV's article mentions that the Germans rejected stabilization for the 88 because the necessary mechanism was too large. Could have been easier to set up on the smaller guns.

I'll just throw in a little more I found, then I've got to finish packing the motorcycle...

Another interesting excerpt from the same site, this time from a more modern system on the M60A3:

"M60 crews typically enjoy a love/hate relationship with their stabilization systems... gunners love them and loaders hate them. While trying to stand in the bouncing turret, the loader must quickly find and pull the round (called out by the commander) from a storage tube and shove it into the breech. With the tank traveling quickly over broken ground, it is hard enough to just stand up. But when the gunner is locked onto a target the breech is bouncing up and down while the turret is rotating back and forth, and the loader still has to get that round smartly into that moving breech opening. Once the round is shoved home, the loader hits his safe switch and yells "UP", bracing himself on anything handy for the shock of the gun firing and its recoil, then readies himself to grab another round. It is handy to be able to disengage the stabilization system on occasion, especially if it is malfunctioning."

And from the T-54:

"Even with the 2-axis Tsiklon gun stabilization system added with the T-54B, note, it was mentioned earlier in the article that the the T-54A, the first Soviet tank with stabilization, had only single axis vertical the tank could only accurately fire on the move when the driver maintained a steady course and speed, which is almost impossible during most battlefield situations. Normally, the commander would order the drive to halt the AFV for each shot and then move on as the gun was elevated and reloaded and a target again acquired by the commander."

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Slopdraggin is now posting with refs!!!!! He should be the topic of one of those daytime talk shows "Stop me before I post again!". Hope your boss is satsfied with you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be silly. References are very welcome.

--Rett

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]