Correct me if I'm wrong but I read somewhere that some Stuarts were fitted with stabilzers, the only problem was that the crew found them uncomfortable.
What do you mean by uncomfortable stabilzer.
I think they should just keep it the way it is, if not I find the expanding crosshair to be quite a good idea. I never drive tanks or planes cause I suck at it.
The M3 Stuart and the M4 Sherman and the M26 Pershing all had gun stabilization systems to fire on the move.
The problem was moving cross country the gun stays steady while the vehicle bounces around. This gives the effect inside the tank of a 500lb to 900lb tank breech swinging around inside the turret that were known to break arms and hands if it came in contact.
So yes uncomfortable in the sense that it was brutal to human body parts it came in contact with.
Most tank crews were not comfortable witjh this and disabled the systems so they could not fire accurately on the move.
that does sound uncomfortable! I dont think there's any chance of restrictions though, nobody wants fireing restrictions. Probaly the only extra realism with tank cannons is if they made them more inccacurte on the move- maybe another poll with some of the ideas suggest here rather then this limited firing stuff.
not many people can truly fire on the move in FH and most of the time can not hit a plane while moving. the most common tactics i see in FH are the "reveal yourself to shoot then hide again". Leave the tanks alone. they are fine the way they are.
About the tanks shooting down planes thing. Soviet T-34s were often issued 1 or 2 frag shells each for AA fire. They would find a steep hill so they could elevate their turruts.
As for tanks moving and shooting, it's already very hard to hit something on the move with a tank. Why make it any harder? Plus, FH, being a game has to take game play into account, if tanks couldn't move and shoot it would slow the whole game down.