gunnergoz Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 The gyro stabilizer was designed for elevation only and I have read darn little anywhere of its use in combat by American lights or mediums. Most American memoirs mention disconnecting the device before combat. Consequently I'm not convinced that the gyro stabilizer impacted this purported ROF differential at all. While looking at doctrine and training is a valid endeavour, I don't recall ever coming accross any significant differences between the British and the Americans in how crews actually fought these tanks, so I can't buy this as the source of any difference. The ROF is limited by the two man turret and the built-in quandry that this placed the crew in during stressful situations. There would be a strong tendency for the gunner to keep his eye in the sight to remain effective, especially in a furball with multiple targets around. At the same time, the commander would want to maximize his situational awareness by either sticking his head out of the hatch or keeping his eyes upon his vision devices; thus he would probably would be reluctant to dip down into the turret and feed rounds into the breech. Yet, some compromise had to be made in combat and this is the crux of the matter and probably why the practical rate of fire was so much lower than the 30 RPM that could be safely done on the range with no one shooting back, which I agree was probably attainable if the commander did nothing but load for the gunner. My theory is that the light tank commander probably had to split his attention by taking some time to load the rounds himself, meanwhile hoping that he didn't miss seeing something deadly around the tank. With this two man turret ordeal, I'm even more convinced that the gyro stabilizer and it's attendant doctrinal "fire while moving" theory was impractical and that the troops knew it. A moving tank is hard enough to fight from and demands a commander's full attention. However, during movement, the gunner would have time to reload and get his eyes back into the sight so that when the next halt was called, he would be ready to acquire the target and fire. Does anyone in the Forum recall reading veteran light tankers' accounts of what the actual loading and fire drill was in both training and practice? This would be most helpful if we could pinpoint historic practices. I think the answer lies elswhere if there is ever a reply from BTS about the light tank ROF discrepancy. Speaking for myself, I think the difference is spurious but I welcome the BTS gang to persuade me otherwise. [ March 09, 2002, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: gunnergoz ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 As typed earlier on this topic, I’ve already looked into the archives, far back as January 2000… While there are quite some good gyrostabilizers topics, in likes of http://www.battlefront.com/cgibin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=012481 there isn’t any about the subject trying to be argued in this topic. As I tried to say in my last post, I don’t “buy” the gyrostabilizer “reason”, there must be something else, something I’m not the only one failing to see… If one of you “good souls” out there would like to have another go in trying to bring light onto this subject would be more then welcome… by the way, Brian, thanks for your effort. PS- If you are the lazy type (we all are entitled to be lazy once and a while) and want to shut my mouth, a small post with only a copy/paste of a link with material regarding subject would also be welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cromwell. Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Whilst we are (kind of) on the subject, does anyone know how widespread the "Honey" name was in Europe? Was it only used by western desert veterans or by the UK trained army as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 I read somewhere, I think it was the site that KMEAD noted earlier, that the turret basket on the M3A3 was smaller than on the M5 which made it harder for the gunner to load the weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Originally posted by Tanaka: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian: ...American tanks had gyrostabilisers. American gunners were trained to use them. While many misused them and they often burned out, they supposedly conferred a superior ability to fire and hit the target (there is some doubt on that one). British tanks often had the gyrostabilisers removed and British doctrine was not to use them anyway. Lack of a stabiliser would decrease the rate of fire... Hmm... I could bet CM had a different modifier for the gyrostabilizer factor, other then "slow ROF"... "gyrostabilizer" maybe So, what you are basically saying is: In CM, tanks with "gyrostabilizer" get a positive accuracy bonus, while tanks without it on top of not getting this bonus, also get a negative "slow ROF" bonus. I wonder what a German tank commander of the 2nd WW with the "fire only when stop" doctrine would have to say ?!</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 The British Army did prefer to fight on the move, like cavalry, and this is borne out by the design of early war cruiser tanks (free elevation guns and fast) As a result, they got rather badly mauled by stationary, hull down German tanks, esp. in the desert. I think that by Normandy, they had decided that they would shoot from a halted position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 With respect to turret basket size being a part of the equation, the photos I've seen make it clear that the baskets were pretty much the same external dimentions between M3A3 and M5 series tanks...there was simply not that much room to spare in there. Ammo stowage did vary considerably, however, with M3A3's rated to carry 174 37mm rounds (144 in commmand versions), M5's rated at 123 rounds and M5A1's carrying 147 rounds. It seems that only about 6 rounds were carried in the turret basket of the M3A3, with the rest distributed in boxes on the sponsons and hull sides next to the basket. It is not clear from my source (Hunnicutt again) whether the 6 rounds in the basket were common to all 3 versions. This could very well be the source of the firing rate discrepancy if different baket loadouts can be confirmed in the M5 and M5A1 models...Hunnicutt does not provide an ammo load distribution sketch for these latter two version. Assuming that there was a similar distribution in all 3 tanks (which seems reasonable to me given the similarity in baskets between versions) it does serve to clarify why hight ROF would be very difficult to maintain. Either the gunner or commander would have to be fishing around for fresh rounds outside of the turret basket, which also would preclude rotation of the turret unless they wished to risk life and limb in a crushing accident (which did occasionally happen in tanks anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Here is a quote from another source about the turret baskets on the M3 and the M5: This is basically the same twin hatched turret design that was used on the late M3A1. But the slightly lower drive shafts of the new M5 hull allowed the Westinghouse turret traverse electric motor and Oilgear hydraulic pump to be mounted below the turret floor instead of on top of it, allowing a bit more room inside the turret basket in his area.They have a lot of nice interior pics of both the M3 and the M5 at this site: AFV Interiors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 As for the UK light tank, a Stuart V, From http://afvdb.50megs.com/ : ... M3A3, or Stuart V, was modified to have a sloped hull similar to the light tank M5 Stuart. M3A3 was also fitted with a new turret incorporating a radio bustle and larger hatches. The new hull armor gave the drivers their own hatches (previously the assistant driver had to exit through the turret), and eliminated the drivers' doors in the front hull. The M3A3's hull can be differentiated from that of the M5 Stuart by the fact that the rear deck on the M3A3 was flat, and the upper sides on the M3A3 were sloped...But the Light tank used by USA Army in game is the M5A1 and not the M5, so: From http://afvdb.50megs.com/ : ...The M5A1 incorporated a new turret which was similar in design to that of the light tank M3A3. The new turret had a radio bustle on the rear with a removable back plate which allowed removal of the 37mm gun. The radio's antenna emerged from the extreme rear of the turret bustle.The .30cal AAMG mount on the new turret was moved from the rear of the turret to its right side, and a triangular shield was added around the AAMG mount late in production. The pistol ports on either side of the turret were redesigned, then deleted later in the production run. The M5A1 incorporated a hull escape hatch behind the assistant driver's seat, and the drivers got larger hatches. M5A1 was also called Stuart VI by the British...Notice this doesn't necessary go against http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ sayings... As I see it, there is no evidence that supports the in game "slow ROF" factor for the Stuart V... But as in every thing, some people will read the same and have a completely different opinion One thing I noticed during this last search, is that there is a considerable number of this vehicles restored and running in the US… So it is not up to me to go personally and check the interior of both vehicles turrets (M3A3 vs M5A1) One thing is for sure, as any WW2 AFV owner will testify, room for the crew was not an important part of the 30’s/40’s tank design Cromwell. The nickname “Honey” was, as you said, common among 8th Army cavalry veterans (N Africa) for all Stuart tanks… On those days, there was no INET, so I bet it was common only for them… But as the N. African/Italy front was also for a long period (late 42/ early 44) the only source of of “good” news for the western allies, it had an above average coverage within the UK press, so the idea that the “Honey” nick name could have been generalized within the UK army is also well valid. Brian, No, I’m not going to talk about Moving & Firing vs. Stop & Fire… at least on this topic. I just pointed it out in order to show the Gyrostabilizer can’t be the reason behind the “slow ROF” factor within game… at least on its own. There are several other tanks within the game that have the “slow ROF” remark and never had a gyrostabilizer… These above together with BTS statements that no “tea”* or “dumb as$ command”* factors are put into game… leaves me with few clues. * For instances: The Italians had a poor command in 40… so we give them a negative shifter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Thanks Wadepm, I forgot about that excellent site. When I looked it over again I went to check out the M8 Greyhound out of curiousity as it carries the same gun. Interestingly enough, the ammo storage arrangements are simpler, permitting 16 rounds in the turret itself and the remaining 70 or so rounds in the hull very accessible as there was no basket to deal with, the seats being suspended from the turret ring. One thing I noticed about the site's section on the M5A1 was that the author insisted upon referring to the tank commander as "the loader" which confirms the difficult position the crews of these tanks found themselves in without a dedicated loader aboard. Still, it seems that ammo accessibility was best in the M8 armored car and perhaps this should be reflected in the game as well...But of course BTS has made it clear that it won't be addressed for a long, long time, and then in some future engine release. Tanaka: Good luck finding an M3A3 to examine in the US: they were shipped off to the UK, France and China during the war and none were ever issued to US forces except perhaps in the CBI theatre. You might get lucky at Aberdeen Proving Ground but I hear access there is very limited these days. [ March 10, 2002, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: gunnergoz ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Originally posted by Tanaka: But the Light tank used by USA Army in game is the M5A1 and not the M5, so:In relation to the this, with regards to which vehicle is "leading" the development... Chamberlain writes in the British and American tanks book that: "The M5A1 was designed and standardised in September 1942 to bring the M5 up to the standard of the much improved M3A3." M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Originally posted by Tanaka: The nickname “Honey” was, as you said, common among 8th Army cavalry veterans (N Africa) for all Stuart tanks… On those days, there was no INET, so I bet it was common only for them… But as the N. African/Italy front was also for a long period (late 42/ early 44) the only source of of “good” news for the western allies, it had an above average coverage within the UK press, so the idea that the “Honey” nick name could have been generalized within the UK army is also well valid.Also, several formations, including 7th Armoured Div, were brought back from the Med for Normandy. They would presumably have brought their nomenclature with them. Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Regarding development lines, recall that the "daddy" of these tanks was the M3 series of desert fame. The army found numerous shortcomings with this tank's internal arrangements and armor layout, for instance the assistant driver had almost no way out of the tank if the turret was turned the wrong way. The Army was very pleased with the mobility and reliability of the M3 drivetrain and suspension but one issue remained: they wanted to move away from radial (aircraft-type) engines in tanks so that production of radials could be devoted to the air forces. The result was the development of the twin-cadillac engined M5 series with it's superior armor and hull lay out. The turret was not that much improved over the M3 but did include the stabilizer. Around this time, the army asked it's tank-automotive team to redesign the M3 series to a hull that had the excelent armor layout and ease of access of the new M5 hull. At the same time, the M3A3 turret was adapted to British standards with a turret mounted radio (hence the big protrusion on the rear of the M3A3 turret), improving access to the radio and making more space in the hull sponsons for ammunition. This improved turret eventually found it's way, with some more modifications, into the M5A1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FRP Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 I think the big difference brought by the M5 series was the engine change: Cadillac Twin. Making the M5 series quite a bit faster (in tank terms) This was coupled with the commercial Cadillac Hydra-matic transmission. Apparently this made the M5 faster, faster and smoother to operate. This is according to a book by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis. They don't say anything about a difference in ROF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by Mattias: "The M5A1 was designed and standardised in September 1942 to bring the M5 up to the standard of the much improved M3A3." M.Thanks... In my view, the above says it all. M3 -> M5 evolution, was a necessity (Engine shortage) M3 -> M3A3 Improved version M5 -> M5A1 Bring those improvements (A3) to the M5 Short conclusion related with the game regarding data found so far... The "slow ROF" negative factor used in game has strong indications to be a bit “out of line”... Gunnergoz, Yep, you are right, apparently there are no M3A3 in US… Se this link related with it: http://www.tanksrus.freeserve.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts