c3k

Not that it helps, but there is a spotted icon for the tank you label as "invisible". So, if you've selected the Panther, that front tank is KNOWN to the Panther, it just doesn't have enough information to solidly ID it. (CMBO had generic tanks that would be used for this type of thing: you'd see a blocky tank instead of a missing tank with an icon.)
As well, the way LOS works with foliage is a bit spotty. There's some fuzzy LOS to take into account breezes and openings. So, with foliage, what you see (on your screen) is NOT what you get (with LOS calculations). It is frustrating, but like many aspects of any game, without that simplification there would be too much of a burden to let the game be playable.
Not excusing it, just explaining it.
A final note: LOS uses spotting cycles. At certain intervals (with some random elements and with weight given to optics, field of view, experience, suppression, etc.), and ONLY at that moment, does a unit check for LOS. An interval of 8-15 seconds "feels" about right from my experience with the game. Meaning, if that Panther waited longer, it may eventually get a solid LOS to the tank marked with the spotting icon.
(All the above is based on "Iron" difficulty. It is the only level I use. It allows the player to know what each selected unit sees and knows about. I find Iron is much more conducive to good Situational Awareness than the other difficulty levels.)

Tank gunners aim center mass because that is the only practical option.

Aiming for specific parts of the tank is some gamey **** straight out of some arcade tank "sim" game like War Thunder, where distances are compressed hilariously and engagement ranges are consequently stupidly short.
 
This is a modern thermal gunsight. That object at 0:12 that gets shot at? That's a T-55, skylined, in the open, on a hill, under 12x magnification.

Good luck finding let alone hitting comparatively tiny "weak spots" when the reticle is the same size as the entire damn target, with your WW2 daylight optics and fire control methods amounting to "estimate the range and then adjust by observing fall of shot".

This test is flawed. If you leave your tank either out in the open or in a hulldown position after it has been spotted to just keep getting shot at, of course it is eventually going to take damage/be destroyed. And the turret being more vulnerable than the hull is a product of real life. BFC did not make the hull armor on the panther thicker than the turret, the actual Germans did. In the modern titles tanks tend to have turret armor that is better than the hull, because that is how most modern battle tanks are designed. 
No one, and I mean no one, in a competent military is taught to stay in one place after the shooting has started, regardless of return fire. BP engagements are mobile. Tanks will come up to the hulldown position, fire a round or two, and then reverse back into cover. Rinse and repeat. Tank fighting positions are specifically designed for this. They have a built in platform to allow the tanks to reverse into cover. This principle is so fundamental that they teach engineers who drive the bulldozers who dig the fighting positions how to do this during the intro course. If you could put an M1A2 Abrams in a hulldown position and let any WWII AT vehicle fire at it indefinitely, it would likely kill the Abrams. Law of averages wins in the end.
Hell, there are real world examples of this principle too. Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm were dug in but did not move at all, nor were their fighting positions designed to allow them to move. They were supposed to stay in place, and they died very quickly, despite being in hulldown positions, because they just sat there. 
There are plenty of AARs on this forum, some even by myself, that show hulldown being effective. But I won't belabor this post with anecdotal evidence. Point is, it doesn't matter what tank/vehicle/asset you have. If you leave it in place and expect it to survive everything thrown at it, you're going to have a bad day. 
@Pete Wenman's test concurs what I and others I play CM with/against see all the time in game. I guess the moral of the story is, if you perceive hulldown to be bad, then stay in the open. 
Edit: Ninja'd by @Rinaldi

No. If the Panther is selected (not sure from the video or the difficulty level) any spotted icon like that is what that unit is aware of but does not have positive confirmation. The OP's video does not make it clear. But, regardless, you cannot make the statement that "it is clearly invisible to the gunner at this point".

Not that it helps, but there is a spotted icon for the tank you label as "invisible". So, if you've selected the Panther, that front tank is KNOWN to the Panther, it just doesn't have enough information to solidly ID it. (CMBO had generic tanks that would be used for this type of thing: you'd see a blocky tank instead of a missing tank with an icon.)
As well, the way LOS works with foliage is a bit spotty. There's some fuzzy LOS to take into account breezes and openings. So, with foliage, what you see (on your screen) is NOT what you get (with LOS calculations). It is frustrating, but like many aspects of any game, without that simplification there would be too much of a burden to let the game be playable.
Not excusing it, just explaining it.
A final note: LOS uses spotting cycles. At certain intervals (with some random elements and with weight given to optics, field of view, experience, suppression, etc.), and ONLY at that moment, does a unit check for LOS. An interval of 8-15 seconds "feels" about right from my experience with the game. Meaning, if that Panther waited longer, it may eventually get a solid LOS to the tank marked with the spotting icon.
(All the above is based on "Iron" difficulty. It is the only level I use. It allows the player to know what each selected unit sees and knows about. I find Iron is much more conducive to good Situational Awareness than the other difficulty levels.)

Not that it helps, but there is a spotted icon for the tank you label as "invisible". So, if you've selected the Panther, that front tank is KNOWN to the Panther, it just doesn't have enough information to solidly ID it. (CMBO had generic tanks that would be used for this type of thing: you'd see a blocky tank instead of a missing tank with an icon.)
As well, the way LOS works with foliage is a bit spotty. There's some fuzzy LOS to take into account breezes and openings. So, with foliage, what you see (on your screen) is NOT what you get (with LOS calculations). It is frustrating, but like many aspects of any game, without that simplification there would be too much of a burden to let the game be playable.
Not excusing it, just explaining it.
A final note: LOS uses spotting cycles. At certain intervals (with some random elements and with weight given to optics, field of view, experience, suppression, etc.), and ONLY at that moment, does a unit check for LOS. An interval of 8-15 seconds "feels" about right from my experience with the game. Meaning, if that Panther waited longer, it may eventually get a solid LOS to the tank marked with the spotting icon.
(All the above is based on "Iron" difficulty. It is the only level I use. It allows the player to know what each selected unit sees and knows about. I find Iron is much more conducive to good Situational Awareness than the other difficulty levels.)

Not that it helps, but there is a spotted icon for the tank you label as "invisible". So, if you've selected the Panther, that front tank is KNOWN to the Panther, it just doesn't have enough information to solidly ID it. (CMBO had generic tanks that would be used for this type of thing: you'd see a blocky tank instead of a missing tank with an icon.)
As well, the way LOS works with foliage is a bit spotty. There's some fuzzy LOS to take into account breezes and openings. So, with foliage, what you see (on your screen) is NOT what you get (with LOS calculations). It is frustrating, but like many aspects of any game, without that simplification there would be too much of a burden to let the game be playable.
Not excusing it, just explaining it.
A final note: LOS uses spotting cycles. At certain intervals (with some random elements and with weight given to optics, field of view, experience, suppression, etc.), and ONLY at that moment, does a unit check for LOS. An interval of 8-15 seconds "feels" about right from my experience with the game. Meaning, if that Panther waited longer, it may eventually get a solid LOS to the tank marked with the spotting icon.
(All the above is based on "Iron" difficulty. It is the only level I use. It allows the player to know what each selected unit sees and knows about. I find Iron is much more conducive to good Situational Awareness than the other difficulty levels.)

Not that it helps, but there is a spotted icon for the tank you label as "invisible". So, if you've selected the Panther, that front tank is KNOWN to the Panther, it just doesn't have enough information to solidly ID it. (CMBO had generic tanks that would be used for this type of thing: you'd see a blocky tank instead of a missing tank with an icon.)
As well, the way LOS works with foliage is a bit spotty. There's some fuzzy LOS to take into account breezes and openings. So, with foliage, what you see (on your screen) is NOT what you get (with LOS calculations). It is frustrating, but like many aspects of any game, without that simplification there would be too much of a burden to let the game be playable.
Not excusing it, just explaining it.
A final note: LOS uses spotting cycles. At certain intervals (with some random elements and with weight given to optics, field of view, experience, suppression, etc.), and ONLY at that moment, does a unit check for LOS. An interval of 8-15 seconds "feels" about right from my experience with the game. Meaning, if that Panther waited longer, it may eventually get a solid LOS to the tank marked with the spotting icon.
(All the above is based on "Iron" difficulty. It is the only level I use. It allows the player to know what each selected unit sees and knows about. I find Iron is much more conducive to good Situational Awareness than the other difficulty levels.)

If you put two tanks in the open and have a duel. Then your math showing how hull down or not hull down is likely perfect. And I agree, in that case, being exposed and not hull down might be safer since more enemy rounds will hit the hull.
So yes the game is not perfect.
But what you guys seem to forget is that when playing. I am not wanting to challenge the enemy in such a manor. I will be rolling my tank up on the enemy flank, in hopefully a hull down position. Wanting to get the spot and first shot off before they can spot me, then if they do spot me, I hope for the hulldown position to help in their first shot being a miss. In otherwards,  playing smart has nothing to do with where the enemy round hits and relying on my thickest armor to save my butt. That concept is for those that are focused too much on one aspect of the whole matter.
In my example, the imperfect targeting mechanics of the game does not impact the outcome nearly as much. What is a bigger factor in all this is how good is the game at representing getting a hit or a miss on target and how realistic is this in the game.
So I could sit and complain about first round hit and misses at different distances, but I dont. Why.
Because I am smart enough to understand that its a game, with many limitations and as a whole it does a good job of representing what is real. Could it do better, heck yes.
But I sure am not going to be a jerk and go on month after month, year after year about some of its short comings. Like that is helping the situation
I hope that when a engine 3 system does get developed, that it will be even better at these concepts, but until then, I can accept this game for what it is.
 
If you want to be of any value on this forum. Come up with data and calcs as to what the game should be trying to represent in different situations. 

There is no such thing as Gun Barrel damage in the game. Therefore, there cannot be a high frequency of such a thing.

If it ever gets into the game, I would move heaven and earth to get a Miclic into position to fire on an enemy position. Because.

Others are more knowledgeable...but, here's my .02.
CM responds better to cpu speed than cores.  Having said that, I've swapped from Intel to AMD for my gaming rigs. Running 3700x cpus. They do great. Modern cpus running in the 4+GHz range do very well.
RAM: 3200-3600 MHz; 16GB minimum, 32 GB better. 
GPU: I've had Nvidia and I've had AMD.  Currently, 3 of 4 are running AMD gpus. 
Monitor: running in both 2560x1440 and 1920x1200. Honestly, it looks better 1920x1200. Plus, that makes it cheaper to get a good gpu at that resolution. You will NOT get CM to run at high refresh rates. I recommend a gsync/freesync monitor and a gpu to match. (If you're unfamiliar with the technology, it prevents tearing. Ask if you're unsure. Gsync (Nvidia) is more expensive than freesync (AMD). Plus, nvidia has put pressure on monitor manufacturers to hide their support of AMDs tech. Now they use the term "adaptive sync" to show AMD support. As well, it seems like Nvidia can now work on "adaptive sync" monitors.)
SSD: as mentioned above, this is a key piece of speeding up any computer. A 1TB drive is not very expensive these days and will do fine for most purposes.
 
Post the specifics of what parts you've picked. 

Here's a good site: https://pcpartpicker.com/
The prices it shows may or may not be accurate for where you live.  (click on "system builder" tab)
Your monitor is fine. (1920x1080 is "standard" 1080.) 
You may (should?) be able to keep your case and power supply (psu: power supply unit).  You could use the existing video card and, after building your new computer,  then decide whether or not to swap it out. 
What is your budget? 
 

Cost: under 1k...what? Bhat? US Dollars? 
CM runs very well under Win10. Irwin has a vexing issue. That's very rare. I know of him (possibly one other?). Otherwise, the most common issue is having to re-enter your license and that's it.
CM is not very video-card intensive. You can get a very good upgrade with a new CPU, motherboard, and RAM for ~$500 US...assuming your case and power supply are still good. (Case will fit an ATX motherboard? That's the most common.) Add another $100 for a 1TB SSD and you'll really see a difference.
Here's a couple of specifics:
Motherboard: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B550-AORUS-PRO-AC-rev-10#kf
RAM that will work with that motherboard: https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232194   
(see https://www.gskill.com/configurator?page=1&cls=1529635169&manufacturer=1524715126&chipset=1592295085&model=1592295736&adSearch2=Memory_Type§DDR4,Capacity§16GB (8GBx2),Tested_Speed§3600MHz, )
The CPU: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07SQBFN2D?tag=pcpapi-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1
The above AMD cpu comes with a pretty good cooler. The ram is a 3600MHz set. You don't want to go much above that speed with the latest AMD processors.
For an SSD:
https://www.newegg.com/samsung-860-evo-series-1tb/p/N82E16820147673?Item=N82E16820147673&quicklink=true
(There are others out there. This is a very decent one for $140.)
That's a very nice budget build. There are many other options. But that's a start for you to compare and shop.

Sigh.
I really wish that you had taken my advice and gotten your own thread up here. Instead, you've hijacked someone else's.
Your issue is very unique. Yes, we'd all like to help you resolve it. How about we reserve THIS thread to resolve the OP's issue?

Cost: under 1k...what? Bhat? US Dollars? 
CM runs very well under Win10. Irwin has a vexing issue. That's very rare. I know of him (possibly one other?). Otherwise, the most common issue is having to re-enter your license and that's it.
CM is not very video-card intensive. You can get a very good upgrade with a new CPU, motherboard, and RAM for ~$500 US...assuming your case and power supply are still good. (Case will fit an ATX motherboard? That's the most common.) Add another $100 for a 1TB SSD and you'll really see a difference.
Here's a couple of specifics:
Motherboard: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B550-AORUS-PRO-AC-rev-10#kf
RAM that will work with that motherboard: https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232194   
(see https://www.gskill.com/configurator?page=1&cls=1529635169&manufacturer=1524715126&chipset=1592295085&model=1592295736&adSearch2=Memory_Type§DDR4,Capacity§16GB (8GBx2),Tested_Speed§3600MHz, )
The CPU: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07SQBFN2D?tag=pcpapi-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1
The above AMD cpu comes with a pretty good cooler. The ram is a 3600MHz set. You don't want to go much above that speed with the latest AMD processors.
For an SSD:
https://www.newegg.com/samsung-860-evo-series-1tb/p/N82E16820147673?Item=N82E16820147673&quicklink=true
(There are others out there. This is a very decent one for $140.)
That's a very nice budget build. There are many other options. But that's a start for you to compare and shop.

Not really. The thread seems to have devolved into how often does real-life battle damage to the barrel make the gun inoperable. The OP started with a complaint that the GAME has "gun damage" occurring too often.
There has been a conflation in this thread that the game label "gun damaged" is somehow the same as barrel damage.
 

I'll repeat myself: "Gun damage" covers a LOT more than just a barrel.
 

So from some long experience with this game its become clear to me that the accuracy of tanks and AT guns are way too accurate once they are zeroed in. The AI will aim pixel perfect on the same spot every shot, only the gun accuracy itself will deviate the hits. Here is some tests i did with and without cover infront of the tank (hull down). The lesson here seems to be that a tank with enough armor SHOULD NOT go hull down cus its a death sentence due to how AI aims and mixed with the unreal zeroed accuracy the main gun will get knocked out very quickly.

Tiger 2, behind a 2m hill (hull down) at 1000m vs 76mm guns. At 1000m i do not expect the hit area to be this tiny. The side and top turret is nearly untouched and the muzzle break is completely perforated from existance.

Tiger 2, at 1000m not hull down vs 76mm guns. Here we can see that the AI targeting has changed to the hull instead and the turret is nearly untouched (only 3 shells hit the very lowest part of the turret). In this scenario the shermans ran out of AP so i deacivated the target arc for the tiger and it knocked out all 5 of them, while in the hull down scenario the main gun was knocked out almost instantly and would render the tank useless.

Here we have a jagdpanther at 600m behind a 1m hill vs 76mm guns. Only the lower front is hull down. Again we see the insane accuracy once the tanks have been fully zeroed that gives a unreal hit area. The only deviation is the gun accuracy, not the "humans" aiming it. The mantlet for tank destroyers also seem unrealisticly weak to get penetrated at those insane angles and thus knocking out the main gun. Another thing with this one is that odd penetration on the barrel. How on earth can a shell penetrate the barrel at that angle, this should not be possible.

Jagdpanzer IV L/70 at 600m behind 1m hill vs 76mm guns. Only the lower front is hull down. Here again the insane accuracy and main gun knocked out instantly.

Jagdpanzer at 600m on flat ground vs 75mm guns. Here we see the targeting area has changed cus it has no terrain infront of it. In this scenario the main gun remains operational cus the AI cannot abuse its accuracy on the mantlet area so this tank would be better off than if it was hull down.
 
The thing im saying is not that the overall accuracy is too good, cus that works just fine. What i am saying is that once the AI gets fully zeroed, they have no deviation what so ever in their aiming. Only the gun accuracy itself shows on the hit area of the target and it gives a unrealistic scenario of hits. All rounds land within tiny areas and if you use terrain to get hull down (which should be a good tactic) you will risk loosing the main gun very quickly. I expect to see hits all over the tanks in these scenarios and not within a tiny circle at +600m, remember there is supposed to be humans actually aiming the cannons, but the AI clearly aims at a single dot on the target with no deviation once the gun is fully zeroed. The few shells you see away from the main hit area is made before the gun is fully zeroed inwhich deviation is fine.
I have only terrible experiences with StuGs for example cus the only thing that gets hit on those is the mantlet. And once the mantlet is hit (even by a stuarts 37mm) the main gun will be knocked out. In my games with stugs i get a unreal amount of main gun damages for shells hitting the gun directly or the mantlet (which should be 80mm like the rest of the front, but still get pierced for some reason)
 
EDIT:

Here is the deviation at 2000m. Notice how all rounds hit in a nice circle at center mass, the few shells that hit the sides and lower plate was before the gun was fully zeroed in and still had some aiming deviation.

For refrence this is how the target would look from the gunners perspective, 5x gunner optics zoom. The target is tiny so managing to hit within that circle every time would be nearly impossible.

I will frequently place TRPs on top of my defenders. I let them know that they're present. They know that if their defense flags, I will rain artillery down on them. I find it motivates them to fight a bit harder, don't you?
 

 
Seriously, I have placed TRPs on top of my own positions...IF that position is key terrain for an attacker. Nothing like letting the enemy take some trench/foxholes/a small copse, and then bring a devastating arty stonk down on them. After a few of those, he's less likely to try to close with my defenders. 

Oh my gosh, no one reads my links...
 

The Worst Vehicle Trades in Military History
We start this update saluting @DoubleD who saw and opportunity, took it, did all he could and paid the ultimate price for what appears to be absolutely no gain.
We start in the north where we left off with the PanzerIV and Panther from DoubleD's platoon advancing to swing around and strike at two T-34's gaurding Elvis' home objective - OBJ Jaegermeister. They have the cover of the building and a high wall to provide a hull down position. One of the T-34's move off to the east to try and intercept the spotted German panzers. DoubleD in the lead in his Panther takes off with a cover arc ready to ambush this moving T-34 while it's still trying to deploy.
It's a fatal mistake. Disaster. The T-34 had already started turning. DoubleD is quicker and does get the first shot off, a side penetration! It surprisingly doesn't take out the T-34.
Moments later a return shot causes a catastrophic explosion killing the whole crew.

Despite the whole swing around from the north east plan in tatters, it turns out to be enough to stop Elvis from trying the same trick. It also proves (expensively) that there isn't any Soviet infantry around this part of the map. KG @Josey Wales is moving up to take over flank security, confident his opened top light vehicles won't be exposed to Soviet SMG's.
That is really all that is occurring on the northern half of the map since the last update. The Soviet aircraft did reappear and shoot up a supply truck back in my deployment zone (sorry, the Ostwind didn't get to respond so no pics of it in action), but hasn't been seen since.
The PzIII get's into a shooting match with a T-34, (one from the centre earlier?), and the short 75mm shows it's age. Multiple strikes as the T-34 struggles to get a shot on target.
However all it takes is one shot in return.

An SU-85 and another T-34 soon appear down this alley of death followed by a lot of infantry that cross the road covered by the Soviet tanks. @mjkerner's boyz are in for a tough time. The small force holding the forward buildings pulls out before being engaged by the swarm of Soviets not rushing into their vicinity. Merging with the other platoon a wall of steel awaits anyone who who goes for the direct approach to the OBJ Beer.

Contact does come, however in a surprising location. It's in the buildings diagonal to beer and not a great location to launch an assault on. There's only open ground between that position and the ruins of the brewery (or what the intelligence brief suggested was once a brewery). Elements of @benpark 's pioneers providing a screen along the centre of the map along with other Fallshcirmjager inflict heavy casualties on the Soviets.
Orange = good. Green = bad.


@Hapless's PanzerIV crew, his body still sitting lifeless in his commanders seat, pops smoke and swings around to lay fire down onto this infantry threat.

Finally here is the situation report. Stars equal fire targets while the colour represents who is doing the firing. Unfortunately a whole squad of Fallschirmjager were wiped out by the Soviet tanks in death alley. They were facing the park adjacent OBJ Beer.

I'm not going to try to head towards OBJ Jaegermeister anymore. I'm really stuck with what to do with the bulk of KG Benpark. @Bootie's Volkssturm have being proving great scouts and are now moving up as close to the main intersection, (currently obscured by smoke), to hold that square of buildings and cover the road towards OBJ Beer. A militia charge across the road into the buildings on the right flank of Elvis' assaulting force in the south?
Any requests for pics let me know.

Just redownloaded and re-installed the game. Everything is working now.

Bravo! Bravo!
I'd love to see this video stickied!
Thanks for doing and for sharing.

Something of a long break between entries, but oh well, let's take a peek at the next mission.


The mission is a little more sedate than the last one. The scout platoon of TF Thunder has encountered resistance from dug-in enemy infantry whilst reconnoitring along a small valley through which runs an alternate route of advance, Route Echo. Two rifle platoons from A Company have been appointed to clear the enemy out. We must sweep the enemy off the high ground along the valley and then regroup at the far end. I have an hour to complete my objectives.
The enemy is known to be light infantry, dug in with trenches and bunkers. The size of their force is unknown, as is their quality. This close to the border, it is possible that they are reservists. Given the size of the AO, we may be facing a company, possibly reinforced. No armour is known to be in the area.

The valley runs south-east to north-west, Route Echo running along the valley floor. The AO is roughly 1km x 1km, covered in a thick haze.


As you can see, to the north-east and south-west the ground rises sharply, the high ground dominating the valley floor.

The valley floor is almost pancake-flat, with a small rise covering the start line of my force. At the north-west end, the ground begins to drop, with some form of earthen works in the low ground.

My force consists of the scout platoon, made up of three scout teams and their platoon leader, all mounted in Recon Strykers. In ten minutes the detachment from A Company will arrive on the field, made up of two rifle platoons, along with the company MGS platoon. A two-gun section of 155mm howitzers is initially on call for fire support, with a section of 120mm mortars due to be available in ten minutes. Due to the haze, drone or air support is impossible.
This looks to be an interesting battle. The haze could be a problem, but the Stryker recon vehicles have excellent IR optics and the Syrians . . . well, do not. I think the best thing to do would be to climb the sides of the valley from my start line, gently feeling my way forward. As the briefing suggests, bunkers can be dealt with through precision artillery fire and Javelins. As for the assault on the enemy positions, I am unsure at this point whether I should deal with them sequentially, using one platoon at a time on both sides of the valley, or if I should make a simultaneous attack on both sides of the valley. Or I could do something very different, concentrating both platoons on one side of the valley. But I'm getting ahead of myself. First the reconnaissance, then decide on the assault plan. Stay tuned!