Stabilizers

[low_bidder]

I was looking through the OOB and noticed that all the US tanks lost their stabilizers. I know that post WW2, they were sometimes pulled by national guard units because they were easy to break and hard to maintain, but I assume regular Army units kept theirs on.
While the early stabilizers such as the Sherman and Stuart had were not stabilizers as we know them today, they were still useful in that they reduced the wait time when firing from a short halt.
After I noticed that I started looking and found that the Soviet Armor(T-54/55 series)has a stabilizer rating of 2!. AFAIK, the first Soviet MBT with any sort of stabilizer was the T-62, which had the same sort of single axis system the Sherman had.
So why 2 for the Soviets and 0 for the Pattons, which had the first electro-mechanical stabilizer, IIRC?
Has this been that way for long and I just noticed ( I'm not an equipment guy) or is it a 5.0 bug? Or is it another example of Soviet propaganda? Like the Majic Sabots that plagued MBT for the last few years?
The ONLY thing the Soviets did well was propaganda. So anything you read from them needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Or maybe a cup. 10 pound bags in some cases.
Shortreengage, I seek your expert opinion.

[Walrus]

Are you talking about SPCAMO game (ww2 and MBT) or Matrix (WAW, H2H)??

If SPCAMO...don't bother asking here bro...go to Shrapnel forum for each game and try your luck asking the designers
You better have your facts straight...they don't suffer fools lightly ...hahahaha

However, if you are correct, and can prove it...I dare say there will be some changes to the next patch.
Just my opinion, I am very sure others have others.

Good luck.

As far as it goes, I have no idea who had what stab system when and nor do I care. As long as it's in the ball park, and even for both players...have at it!!!
Hurrah!

[Weasel]

Are you talking about SPCAMO game (ww2 and MBT) or Matrix (WAW, H2H)??

If SPCAMO...don't bother asking here bro...go to Shrapnel forum for each game and try your luck asking the designers
You better have your facts straight...they don't suffer fools lightly ...hahahaha

However, if you are correct, and can prove it...I dare say there will be some changes to the next patch.
Just my opinion, I am very sure others have others.

Good luck.

As far as it goes, I have no idea who had what stab system when and nor do I care. As long as it's in the ball park, and even for both players...have at it!!!
Hurrah!

Once bitten twice shy eh!

[Imp]

Far as I know been that way for years certainly since I started playing, & bit of an overstatement if I remember correct.
Shermans have em then they go missing till M60 arrives, it still has a rubbish giro though & keeps it for a long time.
Far worse is the crapy gun USA always fit negating long range advantage it had. Think the artillery guys used to speck it & they wanted longevity like a Howitzer needs as it fires a lot of shots.
Even the first Abrahms was rubbish outdated straight away as they did it again. Think WW2 its a national trend stick a peashooter in the tank though they have finaly got it right just took 60 odd years.
Till the Abrahms USA tanks are really mobile pillboxes designed to defend not attack or thats how it looks to me.
Worry them with your shells that bounce off as the lunatics in the RCL jeeps close for the kill.

T-54/55 did indeed have a stabiliser think vertical plane only at least to start with they lacked decent FC instead.

[Brahmin3]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t54tank.htm

The T-55 also has two-plane stabilization of the main gun rather than vertical stabilization only, and a basic load for the main gun of 43 rounds rather than 34.

I suppose it was shitty in comparison with modern standarts, but still, there were a stabilizer - a fact, which is nicely represented by stab. rating of 2.

I didn't see any remarks about stabilizers on M48 series, with exception of some modern SK and Taiwan variants.
And M-60:

The M60A1 was also equipped with a stabilization system for the main gun. However, the M60A1 was still not able to fire on the move, as the system only kept the gun pointed in the same general direction while the tank was traveling cross country.

With M-60A3 finally receiving nice and cool full stabilization in 1979.

So, in other words, it seems that you should read something except Tom Clancy before writing something like "The ONLY thing the Soviets did well was propaganda" around.

[low_bidder]

OK, I found some pictures of the inside of a turret on a T-55, with a stabilizer. So my information was wrong.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4008399/Inside...reat-Tanks

Scroll down to the T-55 section. Note there at least 2 US WW2 tanks had them. In the above URL, there is a write up where a former crewman says they turned off the stabilizer because if the gun stays still while the tank is going up and down then you have a big chunk of steel swinging wildly around inside a very cramped turret. Makes sense to me, given that the whole fire on the move thingie is pretty much overblown. Most think that means going flat out, but it doesn't. Anyway, I'm still looking for a picture of a M-48 with a stabilizer. I think it wasn't called a stabilizer. I'm looking at "gyro-Control" now.

When I was a teenager, I used to go to the swimming pool at Ft. Meade and pick up girls. I would take them under the fence to the parking lot behind the swimming pool where they stored M-48's. I most distinctly remember the inside of the turret. My helmet got polished for the first time in the turret of a M-48. It isn't the sort of thing one forgets. I'm just not sure if it was a stabilized sight that access panel led to.
Meanwhile, what does Tom clancy have to do with anything?
It is a matter of historic fact that Soviet weapons were badly designed and poorly built. While there were exceptions, they are few and far between. How ever, the Soviets were absolutly first rate at telling lies. They were so good they started believing their own lies, which is why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Very poor quality control. That is because the workers pretended to work while the state pretended to pay them. Battlefields tend to expose pretenses. Google the battle of the Golan heights during the om Kipper War.Less then 100 Israeli tanks destroyed 2 Syrian Soviet style Armored divisions. With T-62's against mostly M-48's.It would have been worse but the Israeli's kept running out of ammo.

[Imp]

that the whole fire on the move thingie is pretty much overblown

It depends what you are talking about a WW2 stabilizer yes pretty much allowed you to aim in roughly the right direction so could land smoke or HE near by to harass. Stop or slow to fire.

Modern systems fully intedgrated to battle computers depends on the shot ammo you want. Fire from stationary is a must for some esp if delayed fuse ammo so for instance you want to fire through the window or wall & have it go off inside the building.

Firing at armour though so long as its an AP type shell not a HEAT one so high velocity modern vehicles can indeed drive at reasonable speed & turn yet still hit targets at under a mile.
Watch some vids on You Tube some can be quite intresting & show crew quaility as in miss then come on target then off it. Others nail it 9 out of 10 times while whizing around.
There is a great one of a Swedish 9040IFV or whatever its is out of control spining on ice but the gunner still nailed the target traversing through about 120 degrees

Cant remember but I think reason for lack of in M48 was high gun mounting therefore breach block waving around dangerously in the tank.
Sherman was a similar problem I think if not well trained it will have you.
Also dont think it liked humid enviroments a lot.

[Brahmin3]

It seems the question with stabilizers is mostly resolved ^_^

How ever, the Soviets were absolutly first rate at telling lies. They were so good they started believing their own lies, which is why the Soviet Union collapsed. Very poor quality control. That is because the workers pretended to work while the state pretended to pay them.

However, you seem to have lived is Union for a long time to notice all of this! Or, wait a minute, maybe you read a lot of completely unbiased and truthful Western press? Or absolutely precise accounts of different dissidents?

[low_bidder]

Historical evidence. Or at least what the rest of the world would consider historical evidence. What would you consider evidence? Would kill ratios be good enough? How about E. German tankers who thought they had died and gone to heaven when they traded their old Soviet tanks in for even older German ones? Or would you consider them biased also?
Iraqi Tankers that traded in T-72's for M-60's.
Egyptian tankers that traded in T-62's for M1A1's?
Just what would you consider evidence? I need to know so I don't waste time looking up stuff that you will claim is not evidence. That is an old Propaganda game and I won't play it. Tell me what you need and I will find it. If I can't , then you are correct. the Soviet Union was the greatest thing since sliced bread and you can then explain why it collapsed like a house of cards, folded like a cheap suit.
BTW, how about a rough estimate on how many millions of people were murdered by Communists before the USSR (CCCP) fell into the compost heap of history? 60? 100? 140?

[retired from gaming]

and how about American tankers who would gladly trade their's Shermans for T-34's ? :) :)