Hatten - Schurzen/gyros?

ekrommen

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Im not able to find a note about either schurzen for Germans or gyros for Americans. I think, without SSR, they wont be installed on any tanks. Seems odd for 1945. Am I missing it? Is the intention that we roll for them? Thanks in advance.
 

Uncle_Duke

Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
384
Reaction score
598
Location
St. Paul, Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Im not able to find a note about either schurzen for Germans or gyros for Americans. I think, without SSR, they wont be installed on any tanks. Seems odd for 1945. Am I missing it? Is the intention that we roll for them? Thanks in advance.
I don't think you're missing anything. No SSR specifies that either Gyrostabilizers or Schuerzen are present, so they aren't unless D11.1 Optional availability is invoked. This would have to be done by consensus of all players (A.4).
 

Andrew Rogers

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
149
Reaction score
420
Location
Canberra, Australia
First name
Andy
Country
llAustralia
Im not able to find a note about either schurzen for Germans or gyros for Americans. I think, without SSR, they wont be installed on any tanks. Seems odd for 1945. Am I missing it? Is the intention that we roll for them? Thanks in advance.
Good question.
1. Lots of useful historical photos of (largely destroyed) German tanks in Hatten-Rittershoffen. None had schurzen.
2. As to the use of gyros by US tankers, this was a problematic issue to research historically. I have all the original American unit journal entries etc. This goes down to the details of the breakdown by US tank company between M4A3(76) or (75) or (105)s and how many were operational each day. However, there is no record of 'gyros'. I would note that both US tank divisions in this area of operation (12th and 14th) were very new to the Europe. Andy
 

GeorgeBates

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
2,377
Reaction score
1,294
Location
Live at Budokan
Country
llJapan
Good question.
1. Lots of useful historical photos of (largely destroyed) German tanks in Hatten-Rittershoffen. None had schurzen.
2. As to the use of gyros by US tankers, this was a problematic issue to research historically. I have all the original American unit journal entries etc. This goes down to the details of the breakdown by US tank company between M4A3(76) or (75) or (105)s and how many were operational each day. However, there is no record of 'gyros'. I would note that both US tank divisions in this area of operation (12th and 14th) were very new to the Europe. Andy
Admirable how Andy looks at what the evidence is telling him.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Admirable how Andy looks at what the evidence is telling him.
Being that the American units engaged were relatively new to the European Theater would lead me to believe just the opposite as training stateside would have emphasized use of gyro-stabilizers as a matter of course. Now if the tanks were retreads, it is very possible they may have had their gyros removed/disabled, but it is fairly doubtful if new crews would have foregone standard training practices in early engagements. Having said that, many tankers disabled their gyros on purpose as they tended to be maintenance heavy and often malfunctioned with dire consequences. The ASL rules certainly overstate the effectiveness of gyros, or perhaps only give that capability to those that worked effectively. If the latter is true I guess deleting them as an option given the newness of the crews to action and the frailty of the system would be a reasonable approach.
 

Tuomo

Keeper of the Funk
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
5,537
Location
Rock Bottom
Country
llUnited States
Having said that, many tankers disabled their gyros on purpose as they tended to be maintenance heavy and often malfunctioned with dire consequences.
Wow. Can you imagine the drama if a Gyro had some kind of B# or Usage #? You zoom in for a beautifully-calculated BFF shot, only to find that your Gyro went out and you bit off more than you can chew.

THAT would be one hell of an exciting SSR.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Wow. Can you imagine the drama if a Gyro had some kind of B# or Usage #? You zoom in for a beautifully-calculated BFF shot, only to find that your Gyro went out and you bit off more than you can chew.

THAT would be one hell of an exciting SSR.
A Gyro is more akin to a transmission than a lucky dip basket of main rounds. With Special Ammo, in the heat of a firefight a crew can loose track of what's left, never mind your platoon leader knowing/keeping track, that's the original designer notes justification behind A#, S#, etc. A Gyro should be tested as soon as a tank starts, just like the turret traverse. It either nods the gun up and down at the next rise or not.

While maintenance heavy, my impression that their main problem was being new technology (bleeding edge) they were difficult to use efficiently by crews. Because of that, many crews decided to disconnect them as being little benefit. Think of it in terms of a milder case of the difference of ease of use between a DEC VAX of the '80s and a current iPhone.
 

Michael R

Minor Hero
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
4,162
Location
La Belle Province
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I remember reading in a designer's notes somewhere that the gyrostabilizer would move the gun up and down while the tank was moving over uneven ground, and that crews did not want to get hit by the breach.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I don't think you're missing anything. No SSR specifies that either Gyrostabilizers or Schuerzen are present, so they aren't unless D11.1 Optional availability is invoked. This would have to be done by consensus of all players (A.4).
I think that using the optional availability rule is a convenient way to go, as a precise answer to the question is difficult to find.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Wow. Can you imagine the drama if a Gyro had some kind of B# or Usage #? You zoom in for a beautifully-calculated BFF shot, only to find that your Gyro went out and you bit off more than you can chew.

THAT would be one hell of an exciting SSR.
Could be easily handled by SSR:
The player can opt for (1 or more) elegible tanks to be equipped with a Gyrostabilizer. Any tank so equipped will have the B# of its MA reduced by 1.

von Marwitz
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Could be easily handled by SSR:
The player can opt for (1 or more) elegible tanks to be equipped with a Gyrostabilizer. Any tank so equipped will have the B# of its MA reduced by 1.
A malfunctioning gyrostabilizer probably would not cause the gun to malfunction.

JR
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
A malfunctioning gyrostabilizer probably would not cause the gun to malfunction.

JR
That may well be right. But as was stated:

Being that the American units engaged were relatively new to the European Theater would lead me to believe just the opposite as training stateside would have emphasized use of gyro-stabilizers as a matter of course. Now if the tanks were retreads, it is very possible they may have had their gyros removed/disabled, but it is fairly doubtful if new crews would have foregone standard training practices in early engagements. Having said that, many tankers disabled their gyros on purpose as they tended to be maintenance heavy and often malfunctioned with dire consequences. The ASL rules certainly overstate the effectiveness of gyros, or perhaps only give that capability to those that worked effectively. If the latter is true I guess deleting them as an option given the newness of the crews to action and the frailty of the system would be a reasonable approach.
The gun might work just fine. But if a malfuctioning gyro prevents it from being aimed at the target correctly, it is useless nevertheless.

An SSR is supposed to provide a simple rules mechanism to reflect a certain circumstance not represented in the standard rules. If one deems it necessary to make the use of Gyros more hazardous in AFV equipped with such devices, then I find my proposal easily workable. You would probably not outright forfeit the use of gyros in exchange for a B11 instead of a B12. Maybe you would keep some gyros and forfeit some. Maybe you would think about forfeiting it for a 76L Gun but rather keep it for the standard Sherman 75. If one feels that taking or leaving a gyro is worth thinking about, then it appears to me it is a worthwhile consideration and as such an SSR (if so desired) to that effect workable.

von Marwitz
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
674
Location
New Baltimore, MI
Country
llUnited States
I'll counter the whole ASL notion that US tanks only rarely had gyrostabilizers. I bet all US tanks produced, at least from 1943 on, had them. First there is this 1944 Popular Science article that says so: http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014/07/gun-stabilization-as-explained-in-1944.html Second, the 1943 TM for the M4 and M4A1 tank (TM 9-731A) says that the tank will have either mono-stabilizer, a modified-stabilizer or a dual stabilizer. it does not say "may" nor show how to check to see if there is one or any way to ID if there is one, but it does show how to ID the control boxes of the various types so the crew knows which one to have.

As to training, there really is not much to train on. One simply turns on the stabilizer. (I was an M2A1 BFV crewman and we had a stabilizer... there was noting to training on except to turn it on and ensure it was on.) The manual has just one page plus a few paragraphs on the next, of operating instructions (p 362) and most of it is on the pre-combat checks and setting the controls. The important check was to ensure enough hydraulic oil in the oil reservoir and in cold weather, to allow the oil to warm up. (and BTW it is simply called a "stabilizer"in the manual, not a "gyrostabilizer.")

I suspect why you do not read much about the stabilizers is that they were common parts of the gun system and no more thought was given to them. The exceptions may be when they did not function properly and thus get mentioned.

I've fired the gun on the BFV without stabilization and it makes it much more difficult to stay on target, even when stationary due to recoil. As mentioned above, the one thing the stabilizer really helps is laying on the target quickly when you halt. I watched a lecture by a guy who does the research for World of Tanks and who is also an armor officer in a the National Guard (and has deployed t combat). His research show the Sherman was about the fastest tank in WWII to lay on target and fire. This was due to the breach, especially on the 75,mm, the layout of the crew in the turret and the sighting system. i suspect, the stabilizer had something to do with this but is not mentioned because it is common equipment on the tank and expected to be used in combat.

As to maintenance. I would like to see the actual maintenance records of tanks with failed stabilizer vs. those that were operational. In other words what is the actual OR rate of the stabilizer? Does anyone know? One has to be careful with giving a disproportionate weight to anecdote... these have plagued the M4 series tanks for years and finally get disproved by good research and actual data. As to crews disconnecting them; why would they? You can simply turn the thing off. I would surmise that disconnecting them could cause further issues with the gun laying system. Again, be wary of anecdotes. The US Army in WWII was very good on reporting issues with its combat equipment. if the stabilizers were causing widespread problems, there will be official ordnance reports out there stating such.

ASL may have this issue backwards. From what I can tell, is that what should be done is at the start of a scenario all US tanks should roll a die... on a 6, they DO NOT have a stabilizer...
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
ASL may have this issue backwards. From what I can tell, is that what should be done is at the start of a scenario all US tanks should roll a die... on a 6, they DO NOT have a stabilizer...
Sounds like ALL US M4 series ought to always have the stabilizer affects on/after 1943 and roll (anything but a 6) prior to 1943.
 

dlazov

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
7,991
Reaction score
1,377
Location
Toledo, Ohio
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
I was an M1A1 tank driver, our gyros were always on, if it went out we were trained to fire them the old fashioned way. I suspect our predecessors did the same.
 
Top