Gyrostabilizers and ASL

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
I know next to nothing of military history, all my knowledge of Gyrostabilizers comes from the footnote in the ASL rulebook.

I find there is a huge contrast between the in-game effect of the device (which makes firing on the move a very tempting proposition), and the historical footnote that says they were frequently disabled.

Was there, historically, a real disadvantage to using a gyrostabilizer? Or are the rules a bit to kind to them, making their tactical advantage more than they should be?
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
674
Location
New Baltimore, MI
Country
llUnited States
In my research of the Sherman I think that the notion that the Gyrostabilizers was frequently disabled is an overstatement of anecdotal evidence. All Shermans were produced with these devices and they were integrated into the gun system. Crews would have been trained on these in there stateside MOS training. If there were maintenance or other issues these would have been formally addressed and there would be documents to prove it. I have found none. i suspect that most crews didn't think much about the GSs an considered them basic and routine part of the tank. So I feel the reverse of the rule should be true and all Shermans should have GS and the exception should be those that do not should be designated by SSR.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
The only real mention of its use (or lack of its use) that I can clearly remember reading about was the equipment sent to the Soviet Union. They were so impressed with the Gyro'ed aiming and tracking system they thought of it as akin to American magic and used it as a matter of course. This aspect was further reinforced by the U.S. maintenance crews sent along to train Soviet counterparts and crews on the maintenance/operation of these Lend-Lease vehicles that emphasized not messing with the systems. I can't remember exactly where I read this but more than likely it was in the U.S. Army's ARMOR or LOGISTICS magazines when they had articles about Soviet operations utilizing Lend-Lease equipment. I agree with Blackcloud that it was part and parcel of standard U.S. training and its use was fairly standard. I believe Kareem Abdul Jabbar mentioned it use was fairly common if not outright SOP (or at least inferred that) by the 761st Tank Bn "Black Panthers" in his book about that unit (but not certain as I no longer have the book).
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Thanks guys for the information.

So, were the Gyrostabilizers as useful in practice as their rules effect seems to make them?

(I suppose changing the rules to make G's the default for suitable vehicls would mess with all scenarios pitting American armor vs German "big gun" AFVs)
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I suppose with the paucity of printed material on the subject and owing to the fact it was a standard piece of equipment on most AFV gun systems produced by the U.S., other than anecdotal stories about a few crews disabling it, not much thought was given as to its relative effectiveness; At least not until rather recently and by a diminishing number of people that have a interest in such matters. However, it is well to note that subsequent post war production continued its use in one form or another and is a precursor to the modern stabilized gun systems used by most if not all serious AFVs designed to kill other tanks. The ability of a gun to fire, recoil, go back into traction and automatically re-lay roughly on target in a very short order is a huge multiplier in a gun fight. Back in the day (prior to using the modern M1 series gun systems) we figured we had a 5-9 second jump on engaging T-10's & T-54/55's without an advanced stabilized gun system and about a 7-12 sec jump on T-62s and T-72's with their automatic loaders that would have to bring their guns back to approximately level to reload prior to re-laying on target. In 7-12 seconds we could put 2-3 rounds out, Steel-on-Target, where they may only be able to fire a single round (and that was physically humping 105mm rounds into the breach).

As for its effect in ASL, I suppose there's a game-mechanic factor involved, tweaking a bit this way and that for "game effect". AFV combat in ASL, though fun and often tense, is a mediocre attempt at reflecting armor vs armor engagements at best. Perhaps the lack of Gyros in most U.S. AFVs represents tactical employment of the vehicles as much as the use of Gyros, sighting equipment, etc. The Germans excelled at individual tactical employment of their assets, approaching or withdrawing on oblique facings, using short halt firing positions more effectively, and use of terrain more advantageously than their opponents, especially early in the war and with more experienced or better trained crews. As the war progressed the Allies would learn these lessons the hard way but new units were constantly being thrown into the fight and it takes a while to get your brain cavity adjusted to an actual combat environment (head has to get screwed on right). I think the few gyro'ed vehicles found in scenarios more than likely represent experienced crews properly using all the tools given them to gain an advantage. JMHO.:unsure:
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I haven't found any decent references to the use of the Gyrostabilizer in Commonwealth units, interestingly enough. Would love to be pointed to some.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Thanks guys for the information.

So, were the Gyrostabilizers as useful in practice as their rules effect seems to make them?

(I suppose changing the rules to make G's the default for suitable vehicls would mess with all scenarios pitting American armor vs German "big gun" AFVs)
Only source easily found online regarding Canadian use of the gyrostabilizer says:

"One feature, a one-axis gyrostabilizer, was not precise enough to allow firing when moving but did help keep the reticle on target, so that when the tank did stop to fire, the gun would be aimed in roughly the right direction. "

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that CW crews didn't change their doctrine and training at all - i.e. tanks were expected to stop before shooting.

Remember also that by 1944-45 the Sherman was pretty much an infantry support vehicle and tank to tank encounters were relatively rare. This was as intended by both American and British doctrine. But even in those cases where tanks fought other tanks - I do wonder how often crews actually trained to shoot on the move, against moving targets.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,355
Reaction score
10,204
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
"One feature, a one-axis gyrostabilizer, was not precise enough to allow firing when moving but did help keep the reticle on target, so that when the tank did stop to fire, the gun would be aimed in roughly the right direction. "
A thought that just struck me:

Maybe it is the Gyrostabilizer which is really behind that "very fast and accurate turret traverse" which ASL covers by US MAVN R:

R This AFV had a very fast and accurate turret traverse, and also a better-than-normal ROF for a MA of its caliber. Therefore, this AFV is allowed the possibility of Multiple Hits (C3.8) even through its MA is > 40mm. Moreover, in a Gun Duel (C2.2401) its total Firer-based TH DRM are halved (FRD) prior to adding any Acquisition DRM. (The final total of all DRM may not be < zero, and applies for Gun Duel calculations only.) These abilities are signified on the counter by the ROF # printed on a white background.

If that were the case, then the advantage of (commonly used) Gyrostabilizers in US built tanks would already have been considered within the ASL frame even without the vehicle being expressively equipped with such a device by D11.1.

In fact, a Gyrostabilizer per D11.1 AND the benefits of US MAVN R could even be too much of a benefit accredited to the device, but I cannot judge on this point.

von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I think you are on to something, given that there was no mechanical loader - the only difference between an M10, say, and an M4 that I can think of was the layout of the racks in the vehicle. Otherwise, what would affect the ROF if not the gyro?
 

WuWei

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
912
Location
Germany
First name
Tobias
Country
llGermany
I heard that the American gyrostabilizers were quite useful, but in the beginning the crews weren't trained to properly use them and this new thing did things they didn't understand, so they turned it off.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
They turned them off because they were dangerous, the breach would move up and down as the tank drives around, broken arms etc...
 

daniel zucker

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
439
Location
new jersey
Country
llUnited States
They turned them off because they were dangerous, the breach would move up and down as the tank drives around, broken arms etc...
not to be a ** but how do you know this? do you have sources that you could present. I'm generously interested in this
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
not to be a ** but how do you know this? do you have sources that you could present. I'm generously interested in this
Please, feel free to be an a**. Just a theory I heard or read somewhere in the past ( maybe ASL notes in back of RB) that seems to make sense if you think about it.
 
Last edited:

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,556
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I used to apply the optional rule for gyrostabilisers and schuerzen.
But I noticed that nobody else did.
So I have stopped using that option.
It could be halfway between the all or none choice that we have without the optional rule.
 

Gordon

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
2,488
Reaction score
2,940
Country
llUnited States
They turned them off because they were dangerous, the breach would move up and down as the tank drives around, broken arms etc...
There's still the recoil guard. Now, if the loader was trying to load the gun on the move and the breach was moving up and down, that might get tricky ...
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
There's still the recoil guard. Now, if the loader was trying to load the gun on the move and the breach was moving up and down, that might get tricky ...
99% of the time they weren’t fighting, that’s when it’s dangerous, not necessarily during combat. How many busted chins or bashed kneecaps just driving around? The turrent is mighty crammed in there and if anybody gets complacent, after driving around for hours and hours, they might just get a nasty surprise breach/recoil guard in the teeth.
 
Last edited:

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
go to 11:10 and you can see how well balanced it is in stabilized mode and also how easy it is to engage/disengage the system.
 
Last edited:
Top