Hull Down & Partial Hull Down Advantages

[jonPhillips]

I'm sure just about everyone is aware of the advantages (and disadvantages!) of vehicles going Hull Down, but have they ever been quantified?

I seem to vaguely recall a discussion about certain models of PzIV having better hull armour than turret armour, so being HD would actually be a disadvantage to the tank's survival. I may actually be imagining this, but if I'm not was that back in CMx1? And if I'm not imagining it, it certainly seems to make little sense ;-)

What I'm really asking is, if I have an AFV that's HD and another that isn't, is the HD AFV 50% less likely to be hit (all other things being equal)?

If not, what is the percentage advantage of being HD? And does it vary from AFV to AFV? Are Soviet AFV penalised like they were in ASL?

And what is the effect on hit probability of being Partial Hull Down?

[akd]

Since hits are calculated in 3D, it is impossible to quantify to a fixed percentage.  Generally, the reduction in chance to hit is going to be proportional to the reduced area available to hit, with greater weight on reduction in vertical (height) exposure.  Chance to kill on hit depends entirely on the weapon system and target in question.  If there are any fixed bonuses associated with partial hull down or hull down, they relate to chance to spot, but this is extremely difficult to test and quantify.

Re: Pz IV, the weaker turret only really matters if it is engaged at a range where first round hits are probable on a reduced area (turret-size) target.

Edited March 8, 2017 by akd

[A Canadian Cat]

13 minutes ago, akd said:

engaged at a range where first round hits are probable on a reduced area (turret-size) target.

And this is probably the kicker. If one shot one hit is a likely outcome for a turret size target then it will be for the whole tank. But if the range is longer then the chance to hit with the first shot starts to go down and then the smaller turret size matters.

So, if you test this at 100m, 200m or even 300m you will likely be testing if the turret armour is stronger or weaker than the hull armour since the first shot is likely to hit something. If you test this at 1500m or 2000m then the size of the target is going to matter a lot more since it will effect the chance to hit with the first shot.

[jonPhillips]

22 minutes ago, akd said:

Since hits are calculated in 3D, it is impossible to quantify to a fixed percentage...

'Hits are calculated in 3D'? What exactly does this mean/how does this work?

[Rinaldi]

What akd means is that everything is 1:1; there are no dice rolls or abstractions now like older wargames of this vein often had for CPU's sake. The shells and bullets you see are physically traveling on the path you see it traveling on.

I searched up the conversation you mentioned....its...interesting. I'll be polite and leave it at that; there is never not a good reason to seek Hull-down battle positions with armor. It presents the smallest possible target to the enemy. You should be seeking to avoid being hit whatsoever, instead of weighing the chances of absorbing punishment. Hull downs give you the best possible chance of doing that. Putting a firm number to that is impossible, though you can learn to 'judge' an enemy's ability to score a hit by watching the first few rounds. If the first round is laughably high you can probably get a few more shots in before they find a firing solution.

At the risk of generalizing though, at combat ranges (for argument's sake, 200-500m), I'll give it to a reasonably trained tank platoon in hull down over an equal opponent not in hull-down, even if slightly outnumbered, every time.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Rinaldi

[jonPhillips]

25 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

What akd means is that everything is 1:1; there are no dice rolls or abstractions now like older wargames of this vein often had for CPU's sake. The shells and bullets you see are physically traveling on the path you see it traveling on.

I searched up the conversation you mentioned....its...interesting. I'll be polite and leave it at that; there is never not a good reason to seek Hull-down battle positions with armor. It presents the smallest possible target to the enemy. You should be seeking to avoid being hit whatsoever, instead of weighing the chances of absorbing punishment. Hull downs give you the best possible chance of doing that. Putting a firm number to that is impossible, though you can learn to 'judge' an enemy's ability to score a hit by watching the first few rounds. If the first round is laughably high you can probably get a few more shots in before they find a firing solution.

At the risk of generalizing though, at combat ranges (for argument's sake, 200-500m), I'll give it to a reasonably trained tank platoon in hull down over an equal opponent not in hull-down, even if slightly outnumbered, every time.

Great answer – thanks for the clarification. I think you may understand why I originally asked the question ;-)

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

there is never not a good reason to seek Hull-down battle positions with armor

I beg to differ. I found that if you're in Panther, you should avoid hull down at ranges up to 500m, since the hull armour is stronger than the mantlet. Against basic Shermans, a Panther is nearly invulnerable as long as it is not hull down, but if it is, it will often quickly be taken out by a turret hit, usually disabling the main gun. At ranges longer than 500m there's an increasing chance that the enemy tank will not hit the turret, but at closer ranges it's nearly assured.

Rule of thumb: At close range, only go hull down if your turret is stronger than the hull, or if you are at long range (at least 500m plus).

Edited March 8, 2017 by Bulletpoint

[General Melchid]

Would that be all Panthers Bulletpoint or just specific models? Would that transfer across titles is what I'm thinking CM:RT and CM:FI etc.

[Rinaldi]

I...like, I don't want to start a fight or anything so I'm just going to leave it at you do you, I'll keep trying not to get hit, anywhere, period.

[MOS:96B2P]

38 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

<Snip> Rule of thumb: At close range, only go hull down if your turret is stronger than the hull, or if you are at long range (at least 500m plus).

Welcome back Bullet.  I was starting to wonder where you had got off to.  Interesting rule of thumb.................. not sure what I think about it but as usual you are thinking outside the box ............ .   

[Saint_Fuller]

43 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I beg to differ. I found that if you're in Panther, you should avoid hull down at ranges up to 500m, since the hull armour is stronger than the mantlet. Against basic Shermans, a Panther is nearly invulnerable as long as it is not hull down, but if it is, it will often quickly be taken out by a turret hit, usually disabling the main gun. At ranges longer than 500m there's an increasing chance that the enemy tank will not hit the turret, but at closer ranges it's nearly assured.

Rule of thumb: At close range, only go hull down if your turret is stronger than the hull, or if you are at long range (at least 500m plus).

Here's something for you to contemplate.

Going hull down reduces your tank's silhouette, which in turn reduces your chance of being seen and hit. Not getting hit is always better than being hit, for obvious reasons: your tank being able to take the hit doesn't really matter if your crew gets spooked by the hit and bail out at first opportunity, and there's always the possibility your armour can't take it.

That anecdote about Panthers being more vulnerable when hull-down seems kinda dubious, to be entirely honest.
I mean, yeah, maybe the gun is more likely to be damaged if it takes a hit when hull-down instead of fully exposed, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the probability of it getting hit in the first place when hull-down is lower than when it's fully exposed...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Bulletpoint is correct in principle even if his 500m rule of thumb may not be. While the chance of being hit is always lower when hull down, at short ranges the difference may be quite small, in which case a very large difference in penetration probability becomes the dominant factor in whether you live or die*. A complicating factor in the case of the Panther is that the lower hull is also more vulnerable than the upper hull.

* In the game. In reality gunners could aim at specific areas on an enemy tank at short ranges, e.g. US tank gunners would aim at the lower half of the Panther mantlet for a ricochet penetration through the hull roof.

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, Saint_Fuller said:

Going hull down reduces your tank's silhouette, which in turn reduces your chance of being seen and hit. Not getting hit is always better than being hit, for obvious reasons: your tank being able to take the hit doesn't really matter if your crew gets spooked by the hit and bail out at first opportunity, and there's always the possibility your armour can't take it.

+1 for the survivability onion.

 

3 hours ago, Saint_Fuller said:

That anecdote about Panthers being more vulnerable when hull-down seems kinda dubious, to be entirely honest.
I mean, yeah, maybe the gun is more likely to be damaged if it takes a hit when hull-down instead of fully exposed, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the probability of it getting hit in the first place when hull-down is lower than when it's fully exposed...

Getting hit might be worse for a hull down vehicle don't forget that don't get hit is after the don't be seen layer of the onion. Being hull down will help impede the enemy's ability to spot you. Which means that hull down tanks will get shot at less. On top of that the difference in many tank duels is who sees the other guy first because that leads to who gets the fist shot off first. and any extra time your gunner has to line up the shot is a good thing (tm).

+1 for drive like real tankers and seak hull down. See them before they see you, hit them before they see you -> win.

[slysniper]

Well, I understand where Bulletpoint is coming from as to the game aspect of it anyway. It would not be the same in real life.

Since the game always aims at center Mass, At close ranges, it is almost sure to always hit what it fires at, even if its a hulled down target.

So fully exposing a Panther is going to lead to a major portion of hits landing on the upper hull, which is the thickest armor and also the most likely to create a deflection in the shot.

So until you are at a distance that makes a miss more likely, you can cheat a little in the game by expecting it to hit the worse location possible by exposing the whole tank.

 

As for being a gamey concept, yes it is.

As for the distance to use such a concept, not sure if the 500 meters is good or not.

 

As for closer ranges, for sure what he is saying does work, just because the game is not programmed smart enough to take advantage of exposed better shot options.

 

[snarre]

i thinks tank crew expierence have some part all sou to that where shot land.  sou im mean is shot going to land on "weak spot " or tjust to upper hull , like on panther. 

[akd]

11 minutes ago, snarre said:

i thinks tank crew expierence have some part all sou to that where shot land.  sou im mean is shot going to land on "weak spot " or tjust to upper hull , like on panther. 

No.

[slysniper]

1 hour ago, snarre said:

i thinks tank crew expierence have some part all sou to that where shot land.  sou im mean is shot going to land on "weak spot " or tjust to upper hull , like on panther. 

Not correct, they affect the accuracy of the shot some, but the aim is to the same location from what I understand. So in truth, you might be better with a green crew, which would be less accurate and more likely to hit somewhere other than the center mass of the target.

So, understanding the game and how it functions can lead to a few gamey ways to take advantage of the situation.

There is plenty of other areas that this type of understanding can affect ones game play, where as in real life it would not happen.

one example, as a tank is positioned to take on a enemy tank, moving to a location where a tree trunk is right in front of you center mass and close.

It will not block you from firing at the enemy, but is a bullet proof protection against incoming rounds that fire and hit on center, and I have seen plenty of smart players use this move, gamey as all he**

But it is what it is.

[Erwin]

"...bullet proof protection against incoming rounds that fire and hit on center..."  Wow.  Thanks(?)  Can't forget the hint now. 

But, yeah, to be good at any game one has to know how to fight "the game system". 

[snarre]

i know that aiming is all ways to center of mass but then explain why green tankers shoot more often to front hull than veteran tankers ?

Edited March 9, 2017 by snarre

[slysniper]

8 minutes ago, snarre said:

i know that aiming is all ways to center of mass but then explain why green tankers shoot more often to front hull than veteran tankers ?

No, just the reverse of that, the greens troops shot pattern would be larger than the vet crew.

So, if both aim at center mass, the vets are going to hit closer to where they aim, which in this discussion is the upper hull of the panther. whereas the green troops have a higher chance of missing by more distance. So in a sense, more rounds would likely hit the turret or lower hull. that is all I meant

[slysniper]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

"...bullet proof protection against incoming rounds that fire and hit on center..."  Wow.  Thanks(?)  Can't forget the hint now. 

But, yeah, to be good at any game one has to know how to fight "the game system". 

Until I saw this tactic being used, I had no issue with trees, exploding tank rounds.

Now I know why it was a good issue when many complained and wanted BF to fix how trees worked, they since have tweaked them some. But they are a very un-natural object in the game and in a sense has always been. ( In the present engine design, I doubt much can be done about it).

[A Canadian Cat]

While we can argue about whether trees are too powerful there are two things to consider:

1) Hiding your tanks in partial cover is a good tactic - see "don't bee seen", "don't be targeted" and "don't be hit" layers of the survivability onion. We can debate how effective trees should be on the don't be hit layer but avoiding being seen and targeted are legitimate uses of trees.

2) It used to be that gunners would fire round after round into the same damn tree - that does not happen anymore. If a gunner sees that a shot is blocked by an obstruction they will adjust their aim point to avoid it.

I personally would argue that the way trees and the Tac AI are now is not very far off at all.

[A Canadian Cat]

29 minutes ago, slysniper said:

No, just the reverse of that, the greens troops shot pattern would be larger than the vet crew.

So, if both aim at center mass, the vets are going to hit closer to where they aim, which in this discussion is the upper hull of the panther. whereas the green troops have a higher chance of missing by more distance. So in a sense, more rounds would likely hit the turret or lower hull. that is all I meant

Yes but the green troops will also miss smaller targets more easily due to the same effect. So, if you make sure you have green tankers and I make sure my tanks are hull down I might come out even further ahead than I might otherwise.

IMHO you are better off using real world tactics than trying to game the system.

[Rinaldi]

9 minutes ago, IanL said:

Yes but the green troops will also miss smaller targets more easily due to the same effect. So, if you make sure you have green tankers and I make sure my tanks are hull down I might come out even further ahead than I might otherwise.

IMHO you are better off using real world tactics than trying to game the system.

+ Infinity

All this talk of playing to the Panther's strengths is all well and good but its basically operating your vehicle in a way where you're deliberately being seen and being hit, which is something I cannot wrap my head around.

I also question the idea that its somehow better to take Green crews because they're less accurate...Green crews firing at hull-downs tend to miss by miles on the first several shots is my counter-point to that argument :^)

Edited March 9, 2017 by Rinaldi

[Bulletpoint]

8 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

All this talk of playing to the Panther's strengths is all well and good but its basically operating your vehicle in a way where you're deliberately being seen and being hit, which is something I cannot wrap my head around.

We completely agree. I did not share this gamey tactic because I like that it's there. The opposite actually. I was playing a difficult scenario when I discovered it, and after I realised this trick, I was able to win with ease by placing my panther in the right spot - to my somewhat disappointment.