Pitman said:
Well, my first attempt at replying was lost to oblivion, so I guess I will try again. It may be presumptious of me, but I assume that the current gyrostabilizer rules are actually based on historical testimony of the combat effectiveness of the gyro, of some sort or another.
Given that assumption, I see no reason to overthrow it based on the opinions of two people. This sort of thing happened *constantly* in World War II--where people in a particular unit would evaluate a weapon or feature one way, but the consensus in a different unit might be something completely different. For example, take Panzerfausts. Some American units, like the 82nd Airborne division, loved them and used captured fausts. Others did not; one armored division, for example (I forget which one), had a demonstration of a faust and the person handling it blew his own head off. That division decided not to use captured fausts. Now, if you only knew that, would you think fausts were effective?
If a great deal of evidence emerges to suggest that these two people from a tank battalion are not an isolated case but are actually representative of widespread opinion about gyros, then I could see questioning ASL's representation of them. However, in the absence of such widespread evidence, I would not extend such feelings beyond that battalion.
>>
Well....there you go again Pitman. I did not say ALL gyros are out. I was simply giving an update on a specific tank battalion, in this case, the 37th. Don't get your panties in a wad.
I am aware that some units did use the gyrostabilizer. And some units, especially units that deployed to ETO later on, may have used it more. However, gyro's utility is exaggerated a little. It was a sensitive device that required proper maintenance and care to utilize properly. And during combat conditions where a unit such as the 37th often fought without bow gunners because of personnel shortages, it follows that other parts of the tank took the crews' priority of maintanance effort. It also, as I mentioned earlier, only stabilized the gun in its vertical axis (up and down). It did not stabilize the gun in traverse. So if one knows about tank gunnery (and I do since I was an Armor officer and have fired on gunnery table 8)that in a non-stopped engagement it would be of only marginal help since the gunner would have to apply lead mannually (a very difficult gunnery technique given the gunner's limited view through his telescope) to the target in anything but a head on engagement. I will also add that U.S. Army tank gunnery training required that the tank fire from a short halt. The sequence is this:
TC Identifies the target and gives the fire command of "Gunner, Shot, Tank, 500, driver stop. The driver then stops the tank. The Gunner says "Identified" when he sees the target. TC says "FIRE". Gunner says "On the way" (and presses the floor mounted fire button for the MA as he pronounces the "y" in the word "way". The TC assesses the target and gives the command to reengage or move out depending upon the stuation. The whole process takes only a few seconds. But the point is that the doctrine of the time was that the tank fired from a short halt despite having the gyro.
In my scenario, Deadeye Smoyer, there is specific mention of gunner Smoyer using the M-26's gyro to engage a Panther in Cologne, Germany. That is a very good example of gyro use. My point is that research on my particular project has revealed that te 37th did not use the gyro. This is a problem for me as a designer. Because at Arracourt, it has also been confirmed that the battalion did not have 76mm guns. The 37th had nearly all 75mm and 105mm Shermans and few if any were using their gyros. Then the problem becomes how to portray this unit's success in the face of numerical parity with Panthers and no air support.
The research confirms that the German unit oppossing the 37th at Arracourt was poorly trained and had inexperienced crews, while the 37th is a well-trained veteran unit, known for exceptionally high gunnery scores and gunnery training emphasis, even during lulls in combat operations. The bottom line here is that the 37th is a 75mm unit with a high proportion of good armor leaders. It is superior leadership, skill and excellent gunnery that allowed them to succeed against the 113th Panzer Brigade.
I also take exception to your comment about the "opinions of two people." These men were there. If we do not take their words for the use of gyros, then who do we believe?
This is not a case of every tank is a Tiger. This is a simple question with a simple answer. One officer who was the with the battalion from July 44 to May 45 and who acted as S-3, XO, and Battalion Commander, the other a Company Commander (both of them TANK COMMANDERS themselves)said the unit did not use the gyrostabilizers to engage targets. The 37th Tank Battalion did not use them to engage targets and that is a plain and simple fact. So when you see scenarios on this in the future, you'll know where all the armor leaders came from and where all the gyros went.
Evan Sherry
Schwerpunkt
Why don't we meet in a private chat room where I can virtually pummel you? 
