It’s not even a real stabilizer. It’s a short-stop gyro system that is ment to stabilize the gun when you break. They would be perfectly fine in Enlisted.
2 Likes
Not 100% true but yes that’s one of the reasons I want it, it’ll give the ability to shoot first in a fight and shoot at enemy Infantry faster
1 Like
Unlike the M5A1, the Sherman did have a proper stabilizer, actually, being a single-axis stabilizer based upon naval designs of it’s era. That said, it’s still something that should work fine in Enlisted.
It was also quite effective IRL where it was used by crews trained on it, and is a reasonably large factor for the performance of shermans in warthunder in RB, arguably, given the first hit probability advantage it provides. - Which is what benefit it provided IRL as well, as Shermans were quite likely to fire the first shot in a tank-on-tank engagement, which also translated to a higher kill ratio in the favor of the Sherman tanks. (among other factors)
No, it was a short-stop gyro system, as I mentioned, which only helps stabilizing the gun at extremely low speeds and when stopping.
Maybe also because they averaged 5-1 odds against German tanks? If you got 5x as many tanks, you got 5x as high of a chance for one of those tanks to fire first.
Except they didn’t, standard size for tank platoons were 5 tanks for the USA in WW2, 4 tanks per platoon for Germany in WW2. While yes, there’s a slight numbers advantage in a platoon vs platoon engagement, there would usually not be a large numbers disparity in initial contact.
As for the stabilizer; I’ll quote from an analysis / informative piece on the sherman tank itself (that’s been quoted several times across the internet, but is accurate enough);
" The Westinghouse stabilizer: All models of the Sherman but the 105 armed tanks had a stabilizer to control the main guns in elevation while on the move. It used a gyroscope and hydraulic power pulled from the turret drive system to keep the gun steady in the vertical while on the movie. The system is often disregarded as an advantage by detractors, for a few reasons, but none are valid in a technical sense. The stabilizer was a very advanced piece of kit, and something the Germans could not copy, and never installed a similar system on a wartime tank. That it was complicated and the crews lacked training in using it, doesn’t mean it didn’t work and offer advantages to crews who bothered with it."
Ultimately, it is/was an hydraulically powered, mechanically and gyroscopically controlled stabilizer for the vertical axis. It’s not merely a gyroscopic dampening system, and there are a number of additional components that made it considerably more capable than such “short stop” stabilizing systems found on a number of low-caliber cannons during the war.
Edit, have an article of the time that covers the method of operation; (image posted on reddit)
1 Like
was considering buying M24 Chaffee during the Christmas sale, but no stabilizer or M61 aphe shell = no sale.
i agree they should add them
germans already have enough good gear and stabilizers woudnt be completely broken
while at it add shulder stabilisation to tanks if they had it