The old CMBB hull down debate

[MikeyD]

Does anyone recall this ongoing debate from back CMx1 CMBB days? When is fully exposed preferable to hull down?

The debate, if I recall, centered around PzIV, which has 80mm bow armor but just 50mm turret armor. A hit to a hull-down vehicle is a guaranteed turret penetration while a fully exposed vehicle was more likely to be randomly hit on the hull. Some people were arguing strongly against PzIV hull down. Others argued in favor of the decreased hit probability provided by hull down.

I remember one big factor in the debate was range. Hull down & long range conferred a definite advantage. Hull down & close range was more problematic since the enemy gunner would probably be able to successfully hit the turret front anyway. Then the debate switched to what's the definition of 'long range' and 'short range' in the game!

[Michael Emrys]

22 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Does anyone recall this ongoing debate from back CMx1 CMBB days? When is fully exposed preferable to hull down?

The debate, if I recall, centered around PzIV, which has 80mm bow armor but just 50mm turret armor. A hit to a hull-down vehicle is a guaranteed turret penetration while a fully exposed vehicle was more likely to be randomly hit on the hull. Some people were arguing strongly against PzIV hull down. Others argued in favor of the decreased hit probability provided by hull down.

Yep. That's how I recall it too. Was that argument ever resolved?

Michael

[kevinkin]

A lot of shell shock for me since 2002. But I did find this thread. It's not exactly what you want. Maybe it will jog someone's memory.   

Kevin

 

[Holman]

I vaguely recall the debate, but I don't remember how it played out.

What I can't imagine is a real tank commander thinking, "I'll expose the hull to protect the turret!"

Doesn't the greater WYSIWYG ballistic fidelity in CMx2 make the debate irrelevant?

[Muzzleflash1990]

2 hours ago, Holman said:

Doesn't the greater WYSIWYG ballistic fidelity in CMx2 make the debate irrelevant?

I believe the greater fidelity means it just approximately shoots at the center of the visible target. If you are completely visible it will shoot at center hull, if only the turret is visible, then it will shoot at that. If the allies forces doing the actual shooting knew about the armor sizes, then I guess it could be exploiting a game limitation by placing your PzIV full hull visible, since the TacAI would always go center mass. Of course the danger of the allies having something that would penetrate regardless would probably cause most to go hull down anyway.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Muzzleflash1990

[MikeyD]

The first time I played with hull down and the opponent's shell impacted the ground in front of me my heart gave a little flutter. Next round went high. Then rounds started consistently landing on the upper gun mantlet (a Tiger I) So hull down is not some force field that will confer immunity on your tank. Its still cool, though

There's an unexpected disadvantage to hull down I never considered. You lose your driver's eyeballs spotting for enemy units. The more eyeballs in your unit look out for stuff the quicker the spotting (usually). So something else to consider.

Edited December 31, 2016 by MikeyD

[Michael Emrys]

11 hours ago, MikeyD said:

There's an unexpected disadvantage to hull down I never considered. You lose your driver's eyeballs spotting for enemy units. The more eyeballs in your unit look out for stuff the quicker the spotting (usually). So something else to consider.

I expect that you also lose the hull MG and the eyeballs that go with it. Not too relevant if the target is an already spotted hard vehicle, but something to have in mind otherwise.

Michael

[snarre]

well veteran level crew shoot usually to weak spots , example again panther.  sou they aim more often to turret / land shot , than to front hull. lower level crews aim shot more often to hull.  

[A Canadian Cat]

15 hours ago, Holman said:

I vaguely recall the debate, but I don't remember how it played out.

What I can't imagine is a real tank commander thinking, "I'll expose the hull to protect the turret!"

Doesn't the greater WYSIWYG ballistic fidelity in CMx2 make the debate irrelevant?

This! 

I wasn't around for a debate in the CMBN time frame but now with CM 2x I don't see something worthy of much debate. Present the smallest target to your opponent for the shortest time. Just like in real life.

[MikeyD]

I recall a lot of testing went on to prove or disprove principles in-game (none of which would be relevant in this game engine). Also there were a lot of debates about whether we should be trying to simulate reality or maximize our odds against the game engine. The old argument of playing-to-win versus looking for an 'authentic experience'.

[Sailor Malan2]

The debate about turret hits forgets the lower chance (in RL, and I hope the game) to hit a turret target in the first place. If the placement of shot is uniform (effectively random over a tank sized object), the chance of a turret hit is constant whether hull up or down, and the hull hit is just extra when hull up. Even if the firer can't penetrate you still risk the funnies (weak spot, partial penetration, morale effects etc)

Only if the range is close enough for the point of aim to matter does it make a difference, and I just ignore the difference. Hull down should also equal harder to spot...

It probably seems like hull down is a weakness because we only 'see' the hits, not the misses. Needs a range test really. 

[MikeyD]

CM testers were mostly focusing on whether hull down command was working as advertised. Not much thought went into the... um... theoretical tactical implications of hull down. For instance a general (real world) tanker rule is don't silhouette yourself against the skyline along a ridge. But that's precisely what players might be tempted to do looking for their ideal hull down position. So there are advantages and disadvantages to weigh, dos-and-don't to work out. Just the notion that 'Hull Down' positions your vehicle in relation to an imagined tank-high opponent rather than the flat spot you put your waypoint on brings up issues. Like don't use Hull Down if you want to get the drop on infantry. Because infantry are just under your vehicle's hull down LOS.

[Ivanov]

Placing tank in a hull down position has two benefits: 

1. The tank in hull down represents a smaller target. 

2. It exposes the best protected part of the vehicle, which usually is the turret.

So this discussion is relevant only in case of Panzer IV starting from the H model, which had an additional 30mm armor plate added to the front hull ( earlier models had turret and front hull equally protected ). Anyway in real combat it is the turret that receives something like 80% of all the hits. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

6 hours ago, Ivanov said:

1. The tank in hull down represents a smaller target. 

2. It exposes the best protected part of the vehicle, which usually is the turret.

3) They are more difficult to spot.