Accuracy While Firing On the Move (OR FAST) in CMBO

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

US Armor Force Tank Gunnery Manual FM17-12 (1943 iteration) clearly indicates that --- stab or no stab -- firing while on the move should only be conducted in “emergencies”, and only by “expert crews”, and only at “point blank ranges”.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff: Apologies for not having copied the '44 edition for you yet. Before I get into it, I'm wondering if the '43 version has a large sub-section 79 on firing while moving?

I probably ought to scan and post the whole thing, but my experience with OCR is not very promising...

Anyway, a quick excerpt from the 10 July 44 edition of FM 17-12 (the section begins with descriptions of the coax as the primary weapon to be used while moving):

"(4) Use the tank gun against unexpected tank and antitank targets, particularly when moving down roads or over smooth terrain. At 500 yards you have a 50 percent chance of obtaining a hit against a tank on the first round. At ranges over 1000 yards this type of fire is not profitable....

"(6) The gyro-stabilizer is especially valuable in directing fire from landing craft and from amphibious tanks in assaults on beaches....

"b. Crew teamwork....(2) The driver warns the gunner when rough terrain is ahead. When crossing rough terrain, the gunner does not fight the gun (attempting to keep it on the target by spinning the elevation handwheel), but waits until the stabilizer has regained control of the gun and the action has smoothed out.

"(3) The stabilizer does not lay the gun. It tends to keep the gun where it has been laid; that is, it eliminates extemely jerky vertical movements caused by the movement of the tank. Even with a stabilizer, the gun does not hold constantly on the target. The gunner watches the swing of the gun through the target and fires as the proper sight setting crosses the target.

(4) Laying for deflection is easier when the tank travels at a slight angle to the target instead of head-on."

And that's the way it was, on paper at least, in July 1944. There is some more cool stuff, including care and operation of the gyro, and some diagrams for moving targets.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

True, but this is up to the player. There are a half dozen ways of doing this, but generally they center on the HUNT order, giving Pause orders during the middle of a move, or halting orders completely and then replotting using the C&C penalty as a pause of sorts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pause command cannot be given during the middle of a move, only at the beginning. I wish we could do that.

Using the C&C penalty to do halts means you have to plot the orders over the course of more than one turn. One extra turn for every halt. This is usually not feasible and is unwieldy in any case.

[aka_tom_w]

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

Id like Steve to comment on these thoughts. Theres some good ideas here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Lewis!

-tom w

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

The pause command cannot be given during the middle of a move, only at the beginning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what was meant was that you plot a move requiring more than one turn to complete. At the beginning of each turn, put in a pause. Thus, you have a pause in the middle (more or less) of the move (not the turn).

Michael

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MkiV Said: "(4) Use the tank gun against unexpected tank and antitank targets, particularly when moving down roads or over smooth terrain. At 500 yards you have a 50 percent chance of obtaining a hit against a tank on the first round. At ranges over 1000 yards this type of fire is not profitable....

"(6) The gyro-stabilizer is especially valuable in directing fire from landing craft and from amphibious tanks in assaults on beaches....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to see this section of the 1944 version of the manual. The remaining sections you have quoted appear to be the same as 1943 version regarding crew interaction when using stab. Can you scan the relevant pages and email them to me in a jpg or gif format. Thanks. Also take a look at qualification course for tank gunnery. If the 44 version is the same format as the 43 version there should be numerous training drills laid out indicating drills crews were trained on.

As I recall from training on the M48A5 and M60 qualification entailed only one moving engagement out of 9 training engagements on Table VIII (and that was an area target engagement…”Troops in the Open”. So about 90% of your training was focused on firing from a quick halt. This is why I find a 50% hit ratio on first shot for a Sherman rather amazing…especially if a tank is moving at full speed x-country. Than again maybe crew training back than did 90% of their gunnery training from a moving tank

In practice, I'd say 90% of the folks fired from a short halt regardless of tank. But that was somewhat a function of how we were trained to maneuver. In bounding overwatch, somebody is covering your tail and you are concentrating on getting to the next position. Platoon Sergeant Snuffy with the light section, hull down on the ridge behind you, keeps a sharp eye out for bad guys while you and the heavy section moves to the next bit of cover. The concept of assault fire is in the books but rarely used. Folks just kind of sneak and peek around when in contact running from one piece of cover to the next -- even in tanks – and even in the desert ala Ft Irwin -- to see what's around the corner. There are other things that keep the technique of fast move and fire from being a popular way to fight. Dead is for keeps so why rush it. I am just guessing here, but I reckon M1’s at NTC still use the sneak and peak method. The bottom line in my mind is tankers can't think and see and react as fast as their tanks can go – a tank can speed you into trouble quicker than you can say, "Gunner Sabot Tank!" So zoom around on the range and sneak and peek in combat.

From: R.C. Gabels “Seek, Strike, and Destroy, US ARMY Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The tank destroyers would even find it difficult to stand on the defensive and ambush attacking German armor, for German tanks rarely attacked blindly or recklessly. An American armored officer reported that "when the German tanks come out, they stay out of range and sit and watch. Then they move a little, stop, and watch some more. They have excellent glasses (binoculars) and they use them carefully. They always seem to make sure of what they are going to do and where they are going before they move. . . "Major General Oriando Ward, commander of the 1st Armored Division in Tunisia, remarked that advancing German tanks sometimes moved so slowly that it was necessary for the observer to line up the German vehicles against a terrain feature in order to be sure that they were moving at all”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With uber-gyrostabilizers there is really no need for bounding overwatch.

Urban Myths: Regarding urban myths what was the reference for Pershing’s being outfitted with stabilizers?

USERNAME’S comments:…Agree. The Sherman’s # of shots fired seems a little excessive. Moving fast x-country is a bumpy ride. Loaders have to brace themselves and probable would require more time in pulling rounds from ready racks simply because they are also struggling with maintaining their balance. Throw in a few empty 75mm shell casings on the floor of the turret …now the loader has a real balancing act on his hands.

Gunners will require additional time in getting a good lay, as they are both trying to traverse and aim while they are being bounced around.

Watching the stationary MKIVG’s in my test engagements it was apparent that they were slow to track the fast moving Shermans (makes since...its harder to hit a moving target). One would expect the exact opposite in reality…i.e. the tank moving balls to the walls would have a slower rate of fire while the crew does the white-knuckled grip of death on anything bolted down in the turret.

From zooming about in an M48, I can only say that unless you’ve been in a tank moving at speed cross-country there is no way to explain how amazing I find it that green Sherman and Stuart tank crews could consistently hit targets at even 500m. I reckon I would agree with much of what OPFOR has said regarding reduction of fast move gun accuracy in order to rein in gamey armor tactics. My gut feel is that ROF should also be reduced for moving tanks.

[ 08-05-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[opfor6]

All the historical references are quite interesting to see.

After spending nearly 20 years in the tanker business, seeing the changes in doctrine and gunnery skills required is amazing. These changes have evolved during a time period filled with alot of combat and a fairly mature weapon system concept. Computers and electronic simulations have given tank gunners a huge boost in performence. (Anyone that has had to sit in their tank practicing firing commands and targeting the motorpool guard shack or the radio towers on the hill knows what I mean.)

Just imagine what happened during the WWII years. The only "tank" combat had been in WWI and was primitive at best. The book was being rewritten almost as fast as the crews threw it out. Each country had it's own doctrine based on the particular needs of their army. The limitations of their vehicles often drove the tactics.

There are alot of myths out there about who was better at what. When it came down to it, it was training. Individual and unit training. The Germans were exceptionally good at transferring lessons learned to the troops. They had very very veteran crews and commanders in the units. They did not like to fire on the move because it wasted rounds and was generally not as effective as short halt. THe American and British spent much of their combat time on the offense. Firing on the move was going to be unavoidable. The Soviets believed that massed fires will supress and disorient the enemy. Accuracy was a luxury the crews would learn on the job.

My solution for CMBB play is the same as I listed before.

1- At 500 meters or less a 14-20% is not that out of line...assuming the gunner can lay on target.

2- The acquisition/spotting percentage has to be greatly reduced for moving fast. This is the hard part of gunnery. Popping the cap once the croshairs are on target is easy.

3- Rate of fire should be reduced by 50% on a fast move order. The loader has a tough job trying to sit/stand, grab a new round and put it in the tube. (This by itself will help lessen the problem)

4- Machine Guns should suffer a major penalty for firing at fast speed. They do not have a real sight, they do not have stab and gunner is being bounced around like a pinball.

5- Crew quality should add a postive effect for the ability of an experience crew to co-ordinate for a better shot.

[Slapdragon]

Pershings were not fitted with stabilizers during World War Two. As far as I know, no one has said they were in this this thread.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I think what was meant was that you plot a move requiring more than one turn to complete. At the beginning of each turn, put in a pause. Thus, you have a pause in the middle (more or less) of the move (not the turn).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that is what he meant. There would already be a C&C delay so giving a pause order on top of it would be unnecessary unless you wanted the tank to stay there for half the turn. But, whatever. It's not a big deal. I just think having the ability to do pauses in the middle of move orders would be nice.

[Jeff Duquette]

Slapdragon:

Thats my point. See my post on page 7, and Check your game. CMBO (at least the version I have) shows M-26 equipped with stab.

[rexford]

The post by MarkIV is important, it lays out the mechanics of gyro use:

"b. Crew teamwork....(2) The driver warns the gunner when rough terrain is ahead. When crossing rough terrain, the gunner does not fight the gun (attempting to keep it on the target by spinning the elevation handwheel), but waits until the stabilizer has regained control of the gun and the action has smoothed out."

Real terrain may look smooth from inside the tank but has little changes that foul accuracy. Action may never smooth out if driving across a plowed field.

"(3) The stabilizer does not lay the gun. It tends to keep the gun where it has been laid; that is, it eliminates extemely jerky vertical movements caused by the movement of the tank. Even with a stabilizer, the gun does not hold constantly on the target. The gunner watches the swing of the gun through the target and fires as the proper sight setting crosses the target."

Firing as the gyro swing of gun reaches target? Sounds "iffy" and not easy to do without practice, like hitting moving targets. Except here one is firing on a stationary target with a moving gun!!!!!!!

"(4) Laying for deflection is easier when the tank travels at a slight angle to the target instead of head-on."

Cause it minimizes up and down rotation of tank relative to gun elevation.

Moving fire sounds very inaccurate except at point blank range, which is what the U.S. manuals state. At 500m it sounds near impossible.

[Andrew H.]

I have a couple of additional thoughts. I think the point that pretty much everyone made about the difficulty of actually aiming the gun while on the move (due to the scope moving up and down) is important, not so much as it relates to accuracy, but as it relates to ROF. That is, in many situations the gun will be loaded and ready to fire but the gunner can't fire simply because he hasn't lined up the telescope on the target yet. I really think that this would slow down rate of fire more than reloading in a moving tank would because (1) aiming requires more precision than loading; and (2) the loader can load regardless of whether the gunner is lined up on the target; the gunner can't fire until the gun is loaded. Also (3) the gun might already be loaded as the tank commences its fast move, which would eliminate reloading difficulties as a reason for a slow ROF, but would not mean that there wasn't a slower ROF due to the difficulty of laying the gun.

So for both of these reasons I think that ROF should be (at least potentially) slowed down for tanks on the move. The gunner-induced slower ROF might also explain why the firing-on-the-move accuracy statistics are higher than one would expect -- perhaps a trained gunner could obtain surprising accuracy on the move when he had a semi-clear shot lined up. The difficulty would be in getting the semi-clear shot in the first place.

So perhaps a 50% accuracy rate for a moving tank is not unrealistic *if* the game recognizes that the tank will only fire when the gunner has a good shot lined up...an event that might occur only once a turn. And perhaps less frequently for green tankers.

So maybe it would work like this: Tank A (reg) has a ROF of 4 and an initial 70% chance of hitting an enemy tank 300 meters away if Tank A remains stationary.

Fast-moving Tank B (reg) would have a maximum ROF of 3 due to the difficulty of reloading on the move. But this ROF would, most of the time, be reduced even more due to the difficulty of accurately laying the gun. Perhaps the most common ROF would be 1.

So the main reason not to fire on the move wouldn't be that the shots you fired were inaccurate; the real problem would be having the opportunity to fire in the first place.

There is something to be said for the point that several people have made about having different orders for Fast Move depending on whether the tank pauses when it fires or not. I do think that the game should distinguish between between these two types of firing on the move, but I'm a little concerned that this would be too much micromanagement. Also, if British doctrine in '42 called for firing without pausing, that's how a fast move should work.

[rexford]

If rate of fire were the primary concern for moving fire, the manual wouldn't stress that moving shots were emergency use at point blank range.

The gyro is moving through an arc, the tank may be rotating while the gyro is moving (which keeps the gyro in swing mode), the ground may be choppy and a good shot may never be lined up. And even if it is lined up, the swing of the gyro makes it an "iffy" thing.

Gyro inaccuracy is alot more than rate of fire problems, which may be considerable if the tank approaches the enemy at an angle (the gun would be constantly moving, making follow up shots a task and a half in terms of getting a round in the breech).

The reason why Pershings don't have gyro stabilizers may help answer questions regarding the usefulness of gyro's.

M10 and M36 probably didn't get gyro's cause tank destroyers were supposed to be light, and maybe they had to shoot from protected locations due to thin armor. Did M18 have gyro stabilized fire?

If Pershing does not have gyro's for moving fire, this kind of suggests that stabilizers were not felt to be important (which suggests other things about moving fire during a period when Allied tanks were advancing).

The British concepts about moving fire may have been responsible for the losses leading up to Alamein, which would not be the first time that a concept was held valuable but didn't work in practice.

The Turks at Gallipoli knew that the British did not allow rifles to be loaded during bayonet charges, so the Turks came out into the open and prepared to shoot up the infantry charge. Does the British use of empty rifles with bayonets prove that the concept resulted in effective bayonet charges?

Does the British use of moving fire prove that it was effective?

Jeff made some references to Brazen Chariots and the status that real tankers afforded to fire on the move. Things that real tankers talking should hold more weight than arm chair theorizing.

[Username]

I think the game should severely hamper FAST MOVE firing gyro or not. It should probably keep the present level for MOVE firing but reduce rates of fire somewhat. If possible, aquisition can only be gained during a MOVE if there is a gyro.

A Pershing destroyed a panther while moving according to Death Traps. It was point blank up a street though. Its that Cologne battle footage you see all the time where the panther is burning and a panzerman jumps out.

I find it funny that there are no gyros in US TD. I could swear someone here was extolling the virtues of US TDs flying through the air and putting HVAP into the sides of tigers while in midair. Too bad the search engine is broke.

No BTS on the board lately huh?

Lewis

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

(2) the loader can load regardless of whether the gunner is lined up on the target; the gunner can't fire until the gun is loaded.

Ever tried changing a C-casette/CD in a car moving at 50mph in a bad road turning sharply left and right and going up and down and you can not look out the window to get a heads up on the bumps and turns ?

I know it is not as difficult as a tank going off road at 15mph as the loader has no window . But the shell is a hell of a lot bulkier and heavier. And you do NOT want to fumble the shell head first to the floor.

Also (3) the gun might already be loaded as the tank commences its fast move, which would eliminate reloading difficulties as a reason for a slow ROF, but would not mean that there wasn't a slower ROF due to the difficulty of laying the gun.

It would also mean that the gunner gets only one shot. ROF does entail firing multiple shots.

So for both of these reasons I think that ROF should be (at least potentially) slowed down for tanks on the move. The gunner-induced slower ROF might also explain why the firing-on-the-move accuracy statistics are higher than one would expect -- perhaps a trained gunner could obtain surprising accuracy on the move when he had a semi-clear shot lined up.

One thing that must be remembered is the fact that the early British tanks with 2prd and 6prd relied on the gunner to act as the stabilizer. The gun mount was a "free swing" type mount that gave the gunner more direct control over the guns (he used his shoulder to help stabilize and lay the gun) than the latter gun mounts for both the 6prd and the 75mm guns allowed.

To draw any conclusions about the operational viability of stabilizers from a study that does not name the vehicle being tested is dubious. This is because to infer any superior performance of the mechanical stabilizer from a test made with a totally different lay out is plain flawed.

Ceterum censeo the ROF and accuracy for tanks firing on the move should be dramatically reduced. Stabilizer or no stabilizer

The difficulty would be in getting the semi-clear shot in the first place.

Why run out shooting if you already have a clear or semi-clear shot at the target standing still ?

So perhaps a 50% accuracy rate for a moving tank is not unrealistic *if* the game recognizes that the tank will only fire when the gunner has a good shot lined up...an event that might occur only once a turn. And perhaps less frequently for green tankers.

This 50% accuracy brings out an interesting point: what about the (first shot) accuracy of tanks (AT guns, IF guns) that have not moved an inch ? The hit chance INCREASES when you fire on the move ? Sorry, I do not buy that.

So the main reason not to fire on the move wouldn't be that the shots you fired were inaccurate; the real problem would be having the opportunity to fire in the first place.

If this was true wouldn't the armies have started training their tank gunners to fire on the move, even on mounts that were not stabilized ?

Also, if British doctrine in '42 called for firing without pausing, that's how a fast move should work.

How many tanks did they actually lose and was their doctrine revised subsequently ? CM is about fighting in '44. Did the truths that were selfevident in '42 survive intact until '44 ?

A cheap hobby horse shot:

CM is built around the premise of the universal soldier/tanker/gunner. You are indicating that the British training, tactics and doctrine were dissimilar to the rest of the forces present in the CM now. Yet all of them are harnessed to act according to the British doctrine and the unsubstantiated use of built in mechanical stabilizer in this particular instance. The Allies get benefits, the Germans get penalized.

[Slapdragon]

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

If rate of fire were the primary concern for moving fire, the manual wouldn't stress that moving shots were emergency use at point blank range.

The gyro is moving through an arc, the tank may be rotating while the gyro is moving (which keeps the gyro in swing mode), the ground may be choppy and a good shot may never be lined up. And even if it is lined up, the swing of the gyro makes it an "iffy" thing.

Gyro inaccuracy is alot more than rate of fire problems, which may be considerable if the tank approaches the enemy at an angle (the gun would be constantly moving, making follow up shots a task and a half in terms of getting a round in the breech).

The reason why Pershings don't have gyro stabilizers may help answer questions regarding the usefulness of gyro's.

M10 and M36 probably didn't get gyro's cause tank destroyers were supposed to be light, and maybe they had to shoot from protected locations due to thin armor. Did M18 have gyro stabilized fire?

If Pershing does not have gyro's for moving fire, this kind of suggests that stabilizers were not felt to be important (which suggests other things about moving fire during a period when Allied tanks were advancing).

The British concepts about moving fire may have been responsible for the losses leading up to Alamein, which would not be the first time that a concept was held valuable but didn't work in practice.

The Turks at Gallipoli knew that the British did not allow rifles to be loaded during bayonet charges, so the Turks came out into the open and prepared to shoot up the infantry charge. Does the British use of empty rifles with bayonets prove that the concept resulted in effective bayonet charges?

Does the British use of moving fire prove that it was effective?

Jeff made some references to Brazen Chariots and the status that real tankers afforded to fire on the move. Things that real tankers talking should hold more weight than arm chair theorizing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rexford,

The M18 and firing on the move is discussed by Evans in several oral histories (he was a Captain in the 704th TD and on the design team for the M18). The M18, witthout gyros, was able to hit a target while moving cross country. The ability to suddenly accelerate but continue to figtht back was one of the reason the M18 was as successful as it was.

TD doctrine for the M18 was to stalk enemy units, then use their speed to fire off as many rounds as possible and retreat in a safe direction. The M18 had a stationary rate of fire of nearly 20 rounds a minute for a short burst with all three gunners feeding ammo. On the move, this was reduced to 15 rounds per minute (maybe less on rough ground but this is not discussed). Firing a round every 4 seconds, the M18 can and did, at least according to their crews, fire effectively on the move.

This of course flies in the face of some of the discussions because the Hellcat was very light and could become airborne on bounces when moving at speed. it lacked stabilizers, and it was not a perfectly stable platform, rocking back when it fired it main gun.

Still, using these hit and run tactics, firing at speed, and burst firing they scored 10 to 1 kills on other tanks and AFVs. They were the most popular American TD, and although their infantry support power was limited (I do have a single picture of one firing in support of an infantry advance though, so they did support infantry) they were kept in service even as the other 76mm armed TD was withdrawn.

[opfor6]

The M18 may well have done all that. It was designed to do that. But I am not convinced it was done routinely. Generally speaking to stalk tanks you move fairly slowly trying to find the enemy. Once the engagement starts you may lay on speed. But flying around the battlefield makes it very difficult to see anything.

The german Hetzer was very small and hard to spot by Allied AT gunners even when they knew where it was. The crews would be able to worm the vehicle into amazingly inventive positions.

These are both examples of deviations from the norm. If the M18 had an extra loader then it should not recieve as much of a reduction in ROF for movement. If the crews trained to fight on the move they should be portrayed as crack or veteran crews to gain a benefit because of that.

For the average crews for all nations, at the very least, ROF at fast move should be reduced to simulate the difficulty to locate and lay on target as well as the difficulties in loading the main gun.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by opfor6:

The M18 may well have done all that. It was designed to do that. But I am not convinced it was done routinely. Generally speaking to stalk tanks you move fairly slowly trying to find the enemy. Once the engagement starts you may lay on speed. But flying around the battlefield makes it very difficult to see anything.

The german Hetzer was very small and hard to spot by Allied AT gunners even when they knew where it was. The crews would be able to worm the vehicle into amazingly inventive positions.

These are both examples of deviations from the norm. If the M18 had an extra loader then it should not recieve as much of a reduction in ROF for movement. If the crews trained to fight on the move they should be portrayed as crack or veteran crews to gain a benefit because of that.

For the average crews for all nations, at the very least, ROF at fast move should be reduced to simulate the difficulty to locate and lay on target as well as the difficulties in loading the main gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Concur. Hear hear. All the appropriate exclamations of agreement.

Furthermore: the RL ROF of the M-18 is impressive. But it also based on, lets face it, anecdotal evidence. What is more important, it also implies that their hit accuracy was less than perfect. I mean, shots fired at a ROF of 15-20 shells fired while moving at full speed (more often than not) at a single target. I take it their SOP was to fire the first shot from a concealed position and when it had blown their cover they would haul ass and fill the air with enough lead to make the German tankers at least flinch so they could get into cover before the STATIONARY enemy tank can get a fix on them and blow them away with one well aimed shot.

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by opfor6:

The M18 may well have done all that. It was designed to do that. But I am not convinced it was done routinely. Generally speaking to stalk tanks you move fairly slowly trying to find the enemy. Once the engagement starts you may lay on speed. But flying around the battlefield makes it very difficult to see anything.

The german Hetzer was very small and hard to spot by Allied AT gunners even when they knew where it was. The crews would be able to worm the vehicle into amazingly inventive positions.

These are both examples of deviations from the norm. If the M18 had an extra loader then it should not recieve as much of a reduction in ROF for movement. If the crews trained to fight on the move they should be portrayed as crack or veteran crews to gain a benefit because of that.

For the average crews for all nations, at the very least, ROF at fast move should be reduced to simulate the difficulty to locate and lay on target as well as the difficulties in loading the main gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evans et. al. described it as standard procedure. However, like any other data, it is first person and should be balanced with information from the M18 manual, discussions from the design team, etc. It all depends on what weight in this particular case you place on the memories of veterans 40 years after the fact. In some cases (specific design numbers, exact locations of actions) we may well think that they are not 100% accurate -- but their discussion of the reason the M18 worked well and was "loved" by the crews (Evans' wording) should not be something that would fade with time.

I should note that evidence of Evans on the M18 is not evidence that any other tank was used in this manner. Also, when he says "at speed", he is talking about 15-20 mph cross country.

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[rune]

From what I had read, the Pershing did not have the gyro due to the gun size, and no other reason.

However, let us look at what the British say about firing on the move:

WO 291/90 Firing on the move from tanks.

"With existing British tanks the effectiveness (hits per minute) of shooting on the move is never greater than 1/2 that of stationary fire under similar conditions and is often 1/20 or less. The Westinghouse gyro stabilizer produces some improvement".

The "Movement is armour" argument was held to be confuted by results from a trial by gunnery instructors at Lulworth shooting at a target at 800 yards and obtaining 62% hits on a static target and 64% hits on a moving one. It is pointed out that the smooth, steady movement necessary to gunnery on the move does little to make the tank harder to hit.

For MG fire, "...the number of machine gun bullets per minute that will come dangerously close to an anti-tank gun crew from a single tank firing on the move is very small." The best MG results, using the shoulder-controlled mounting in the Crusader and an expert crew, showed a reduction of one-half in hitting rate. "For average gunners factors of 1/4 to 1/20 or worse would be expected."

For the main armament, it was found that "...a comparatively high percentage of hits can be obtained with a light gun in a free elevation mounting but that the rate of fire is greatly reduced by movement."

More as i find it.

Rune

[Username]

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

The M18 and firing on the move is discussed by Evans in several oral histories (he was a Captain in the 704th TD and on the design team for the M18). The M18, witthout gyros, was able to hit a target while moving cross country. The ability to suddenly accelerate but continue to figtht back was one of the reason the M18 was as successful as it was.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh ...could you possibly supply a range that these feats were performed? Kind of matters don't it?

Now , the capt was on the design team. Lets think about that with our academic analytical minds. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Would he be very critical of something he was designing/proposing? Is he a really impartial source of information?

Lewis

[Username]

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

More as i find it.

Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rune

If you looked at page 7 of this thread you would have found it also.

Lewis

[Username]

Heres slappy talking about gyros on Hellcats...

"55mph on the flat, a 76mm gun with lots of tungsten ammo, and armor the smallest tank gun can blow sunlight through, the United States M18 Hellcat is also a vehicle that is hard to appreciate in a small level tactical game like Combat Mission. I have seen M18's going full speed get picked off in competition play by STUGs who in real life were easy meat for the M18 - they could not follow along with their guns fast enough to get an effective shot while the M18 crews, many of which knew how to use their gyro stabilisers in battle (something which the line tank crews often did not) allowed them to fire on the move while ducking from hiding place to hiding place. With cheesy armour, often called on to fight in close combat in support of Infantry, the Hellcat's expected life in combat is dismal in Combat Mission. Although it has some adherents, most people prefer heavy, slow tanks who do not have to duck from bush to bush with "reach out and touch someone" 1000 meter tank killing power."

Thanks slappy!

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

Heres slappy talking about gyros on Hellcats...

"55mph on the flat, a 76mm gun with lots of tungsten ammo, and armor the smallest tank gun can blow sunlight through, the United States M18 Hellcat is also a vehicle that is hard to appreciate in a small level tactical game like Combat Mission. I have seen M18's going full speed get picked off in competition play by STUGs who in real life were easy meat for the M18 - they could not follow along with their guns fast enough to get an effective shot while the M18 crews, many of which knew how to use their gyro stabilisers in battle (something which the line tank crews often did not) allowed them to fire on the move while ducking from hiding place to hiding place. With cheesy armour, often called on to fight in close combat in support of Infantry, the Hellcat's expected life in combat is dismal in Combat Mission. Although it has some adherents, most people prefer heavy, slow tanks who do not have to duck from bush to bush with "reach out and touch someone" 1000 meter tank killing power."

Thanks slappy!

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the quote Lewis.

Yep, I wrote that almost a year and a half ago from a copy of Jentz that credited it with gyros (I was wrong of course). Based in part on Evans who claimed on the move hits and Jentz who credited gyros. Later books correct this.

The M18 is very hard to employ properly on smaller CM boards. One hit kills it with most weapons. German tanks can take it easy if you use it the way it was used in WW2. It has to be very close to make moving hits, but roads work well for it because you can really get a head of steam going.

BTW-- what is your point of posting a quote from an ancient commentary I wrote about it? Just curious, does not seem to fit into the discussion that much.

[Slapdragon]

Gettin g back on track -- Evans was a TD commander before the Hellcat was produced with combat experience that was brought back to work on the design team. The set of oral histories are part of a fairly large body of evidence that the Hellcat was an excellent TD.

Hellcats rarely engaged at longer than 1000 meters, and never that far on the move. I think much of it was the places it was used though, since Italy and Europe are pretty closed places.

I would, however, be interested in more information from Lewis on why you feel the Hellcat was not a good TD in WW2. My understanding of this tank has been expanding for years -- each time I think I have learned everything there is one more commentary or bit of information that I find that makes me think differently of it. I also go from loving it in war games to not liking it, depending on how it is modelled. However, I recognize that I have not read everything on this vehicle.

Do you have sources which contradict the Evans body of oral histories from the 704th that considered the M18 a great killer? I would love to get my hands on them because most authors have also followed Evans on this -- mentioning the M18 as the "best" TD in the war.

[Slapdragon]

One of the biggest problems with the M18 and deploying it in a realistic fashion is the basic limitation of scale and time in CM. US TD forces where designed all to be tank hunters or tank ambush vehicles. In reality, the three major US TDs were deployed in very different functions. The M10 was mostly assigned as mobile firepower support to Infantry units. M10s did a lot of down and dirty fighting and paid the price.

The M36 was used for long range gunnery in support of armor or infantry -- very much in keeping with its original role.

The M18 was used for hit and run and hunting expeditions with more versatility than the M10 or the M36. In terms of CM, it would use flanking, high speed gun runs, fast retreats, and sometimes extended stalking to complete its mission. On a CM board of maybe 4 square kilometers in a 30 minute action flanking and repeated high speed runs followed by returns for more ammo just is not in the scope of the game. When we use the M18 -- we use it more like the M10 was used, and it pays the price for that in much higher casualties than were suffered historically. Unfortunately -- there is not much that can be done about this.