Hull down test (PzIV H, M4A1)

[HistoryLover]

I did some tests with PzIV Hs vs PzIV Hs and M4A1s (75 mm).

In this test one tank is always full hull down (not partial), the other is standing in the open.

Both tanks have the hatches open (unbuttoned).

Crews are all regular.

The hull down tanks are positioned on a ramp. Therefore they can retreat into cover, while the free standing tanks can’t. This gives a survival bonus to the HD tanks.

The testscenario consists of 15 tanks on each side, but they are visually separated by high walls. Each tank can only spot one enemy.

I did three runs each, that makes 45 tank duels.

1500 m

PzIV H vs PzIV H

-------enemies spotted after 1 minute—after 3 minutes---Losses after 20 minutes--Result

Pz IV hull down--------------18------------30-----------------16+3-------------19

(+3 means they have big damage, for example gun or optics RED, or immobilized)

Pz IV free-------------------9-------------36-----------------20+2-------------22

(although they can’t retreat into safety, it’s also possible that the enemy is KOed or has retreated and so they survived with a big damage)

After 3 minutes the free standing PzIV has spotted more hull down PzIVs than vice versa (30 vs 36).

The success rate of the full hull down PzIV with the tiny turret is only ~15% higher than the free standing ones @1500 m.

M4A1 vs PzIV H

----------------------enemies spotted after 1 minute---Losses after 20 minutes--Result

M4A1 hull down--------------29---------------------------------------11+2---------------13

PzIV H free------------------19---------------------------------------27+2---------------29

Contrary to the PzIV vs PzIV duels, where the HD has no advantage, here the M4A1 has a big advantage when being hull down. It spots the free standing PzIV much better and it hits it more often. To me this seems to be a plausible result.

PzIV H vs M4A1

Here I also measured the time to first contact in seconds (TTC). But since I only made three runs (3x15 tanks), statistically this could be quite off.

-------------------------TTC-------enemies spotted after 1 minute---Losses after 20 minutes--Result

PzIV H hull down---16 s----------------------19------------------------------13-------------13

M4A1 free---------12s----------------------19-------------------------------22+1----------23

Again, the M4A1 has much better spotting abilities.

The M4A1 @1500 m even can spot the full hull down PzIV with his tiny turret earlier than the PzIV H can spot the free standing M4A1.

After one minute the free standing M4A1 spots as many hull down PzIVs as HD PzIVs spot free standing M4A1.

The better cannon, the better optics and the smaller turret of the PzIV H give a WORSE result (29 PzIV H (HD) losses vs 23 M4A1 (HD) losses).

1000 m

M4A1 vs PzIV H

---------------------enemies spotted after 1 minute---Losses after 20 minutes--Result

M4A1 hull down--------------27---------------------------------------9+1-----------------10

PzIV H free------------------15---------------------------------------26-------------------26

The PzIV spots the hull down M4A1 worse and is hit much more often. Plausible result.

500 m

M4A1 vs PzIV H

---------------------enemies spotted after 1 minute---Losses after 20 minutes--Result

M4A1 hull down--------------33---------------------------------------18------------------18

PzIV H free------------------33---------------------------------------24------------------24

The hull down M4A1 still has an advantage, but it is smaller than at higher distances. Seems plausible.

Conclusion

The spotting ability of the PzIV H above 1000 m is much worse than the M4A1’s. It is so bad, that the M4A1 can spot the tiny hull down PzIV turret at that distance BETTER than PzIVs can spot free standing M4A1s. Also the free standing PzIV H spots better than the HD version.

The PzIV H seems to have (at least) a severe spotting problem.

[JoMac]

This is disconcerting...You would think the better German Optics especially at longer ranges ( 1000+ ) would yield better probabilities in spotting over the Allies...Sigh :-(

Well, we do know that the game takes into account that the more crew that are looking the better chance of spotting a Vehicle.

However, the Ranging Optics are located in the Turret or upper superstructure of Armored Vehicles and that alone should prove superior in spotting over having a couple extra hull crew members looking around w/out optics ( once again, we are talking about 1000+ meters where optics are most important ). If it was under the 1000 meter ranges ( more like 500-600 meters ), then this is where extra crew members looking around becomes more important then ranging optics.

Joe

[HistoryLover]

No interest in discussing these alarming test numbers?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I will get to the bottom of the hull down issue in the other thread. Once we know what effect it has, if any, as well as what qualifies as hull down in the game, we will be able to isolate other factors in play such as the size of the tank and optics. But certainly, at first blush the numbers look bad for the German optics.

[Amizaur]

It's good you did the PzIVH vs PzIVH test - this allows us to isolate the variables: those involved with "being hull down" from those which are specific for different vehicle characteristics.

The fact that hull-down vehicles are spotting worse vs free-standing ones and have only marginally better survivability is the most worrying fact for me. Dig-in vehicles with only turret exposed should have survivability much better than free standing ones, by a factor of 2 if not better. It's classic defence vs assault scenario with hull-down (dig-in) defenders and exposed attackers.

Could you publish the test scenario please ? I would modify it in a way that free-standing tanks are actually attacking i.e. moving, closing the stationary HD tanks from few thousand meters. I wonder what would be spotting and survivability difference in such scenario, so hull-down vehicles against moving (hunt) vehicles.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Concealment and cover bonuses from hull down -- if there are any -- need to be tested separately. Otherwise we don't know if tanks are surviving because they are harder to spot or harder to hit, or are just lucky. We also need control groups of identical vehicles in identical circumstances to compare to. This will allow optics and vehicle size factors to be quantified separately rather than mushed all together.

[HistoryLover]

Could you publish the test scenario please ?

Sure. But it will take until Friday.

[c3k]

The biggest variable is eyeballs. Yes, eyeballs. You have an uneven number of men looking for targets.

Let's posit that every member of the tank has a periscope or sight of some sort. Both the Sherman and PzIV have drivers and co-drivers/radio operators. That gives them 2 more spotters.

The hull down tanks only have 3 spotters. 5 sets of eyeballs is far better than 3.

Now we can argue about magnified optics vs. mark I eyeballs. Excellent. Done?

Back to the test. You need to isolate out the extra eyes.

I'd set the tanks BACKWARDS to one another with a covered arc to focus the turret at the enemy.

That would create symmetry, with the only difference being the hull-down status.

Let's try that before we plunge, lemming like, off the cliff of bad code.

Ken

[HistoryLover]

The M4A1 vs PzIV results I have suggest that it's not an eyeballcount problem.

But it's a good idea to exclude this parameter.

[c3k]

The number of eyes is THE number one driver of spotting behavior. (As I alluded to, the ability to magnify the view is ANOTHER issue.) For THIS test, it is not about KILLS or ACCURACY: it is about spotting. So, turn the tanks, put a covered arc, and time the spotting.

Thanks for taking time to work on this...

[MikeyD]

I recall when Panther first went into action in '43 the AAR report sent back to the factory strongly recommended the gunner be given a second wide field of view periscope to augment his high magnification gunner's sight. Panther never got the second gunner's optics but it did get a forward-looking roof periscope for the loader (Tiger I got the same). So there apparently was a chronic issue with German tanks having not enough eyeballs looking downrange. PzIV the gunner could theoretically flip open that forward port and peer directly into the outer world for an unobstructed field of view. But I wonder how often he really did that.

[MengJiaoRedux]

I recall when Panther first went into action in '43 the AAR report sent back to the factory strongly recommended the gunner be given a second wide field of view periscope to augment his high magnification gunner's sight. Panther never got the second gunner's optics but it did get a forward-looking roof periscope for the loader (Tiger I got the same). So there apparently was a chronic issue with German tanks having not enough eyeballs looking downrange. PzIV the gunner could theoretically flip open that forward port and peer directly into the outer world for an unobstructed field of view. But I wonder how often he really did that.

Didn't Shermans have an extra wide view sighting periscope? In the turret? Which would make them much better at spotting PZIV than a PZIV in any configuration would be? At most ranges?

[MikeyD]

Yes, the coaxial gunners sight and also the secondary sight on the roof. Initial production Shermans (CMFI 'early' vehicles) just had a roof mounted gunner's sight, no coaxial.

[HistoryLover]

I don't know if I should cry or laugh.

So a beta tester suggests that a second sight is enough to be able to spot the turret of a not moving hd tank BEFORE the hull down tank commander can spot a huge 2,7 m high tank silhouette in the open.

Good to see, the discovered problems are taken seriously. :mad:

[Mord]

Try not to be so thin skinned. He is taking you seriously, he gave you some good advice, and encouraged you. You have to remember BFC is inundated with complaints about this being under powered, and that being over powered, and blah, blah, blah. So, things need to be done in as scientific a fashion as possible or else they'd be chasing their tales all day every day. However, they have shown, with enough concrete proof, that they'll make the changes when warranted. Provide the data and they'll make it so.

Mord.

[c3k]

Try not to be so thin skinned. He is taking you seriously, he gave you some good advice, and encouraged you. You have to remember BFC is inundated with complaints about this being under powered, and that being over powered, and blah, blah, blah. So, things need to be done in as scientific a fashion as possible or else they'd be chasing their tales all day every day. However, they have shown, with enough concrete proof, that they'll make the changes when warranted. Provide the data and they'll make it so.

Mord.

Thank you for posting that.

I'm a beta. I test things. I cannot test all things at all times. Nor can the other betas. This particular issue is something I've been meaning to test but just haven't gotten around to due to other pressing matters.

Now, you've done some good work (as has VaB in a different thread). A bit of adjustment is normal in a test. Apples to apples is VERY important.

Personally, testing the SAME tank against itself would be far more beneficial than testing, say, a Sherman vs. a Panzer IV. (Or test the same tank against the same "other" tank. A Sherman vs. a PzIV and a Sherman vs. a HULL DOWN Pz IV.)

There is something there that -seems- off. It needs to be teased out so that the programmers know EXACTLY what is off.

If you're burnt out from testing this, that's cool. If not, a bit more controlled testing would be a GREAT help.

Thanks,

Ken

[HistoryLover]

I hope I will find time to test more on the weekend, especially the suggestions you made.

If I place the tank with the rear to the enemy, will it not turn around once it spots the enemy tank? Must the tank be immobilized to prevent that?

[BadgerDog]

No wonder I'm getting the crap kicked out of me by an opponent using M4's against nothing but my PzIV's ...

On a huge map, I'm getting clobbered at long distance and I have yet to see the M4's doing it...

The rounds are coming out of nowhere on the map and I can't even get a partial location of where they're coming from..

Heck, he even sees me when I'm in a wood line partially obscured...

Regards,

Doug

[A Canadian Cat]

I'm a beta. I test things. I cannot test all things at all times. Nor can the other betas. This particular issue is something I've been meaning to test but just haven't gotten around to due to other pressing matters.

And we appreciate it by the way - even if we do not always sound like we do

There is something there that -seems- off. It needs to be teased out so that the programmers know EXACTLY what is off.

Glad to hear you - and others are on the case.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Hey Badgerdog, did the Shermans you use have the original sights? My understanding is that the gunner could use his periscope to scan around independent of where the gun was pointing. Is that correct and what were the limits as to how far it could be turned?

[A Canadian Cat]

Now, you've done some good work (as has VaB in a different thread). A bit of adjustment is normal in a test. Apples to apples is VERY important.

Personally, testing the SAME tank against itself would be far more beneficial than testing, say, a Sherman vs. a Panzer IV. (Or test the same tank against the same "other" tank. A Sherman vs. a PzIV and a Sherman vs. a HULL DOWN Pz IV.)

This is a slight concern for me. I know where you are going - trying to determine if there is something off with a particular tank's spotting ability. So, regardless this is worth while testing.

Having said that my real concern is that even a single set of eye balls - the tank commander's - sitting in a hull down tank is not spotting a tank in the open before being spotted. I understand the more eyeballs argument and it has some merit but not all eyeballs are equal especially in a tank. My gut says that one guy with the best view showing a vastly reduced profile should "win" the spotting race more often that not even against the whole crew of a tank in the open. After all the one guy has a whole tank to look at while the crew has a sliver of a profile to look at. That plus some of those crew members would have a poor chance of noticing a hull down turret.

Do others feel I am wrong in that view? I am more than happy to be convinced I am totally wrong.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Ian, you are not wrong. In fact I bet in a real tank that the loader, radio operator, and driver rarely, if ever, are actively on the look out for enemy tanks. The loader maybe more than the other two, but when the tank is actively engaging enemy armor he too should be taken out of the mix for spotting.

The main spotting assets are in the turret, that is the gunner and the TC, the loader as well when the tank isn't firing its gun.

Bil

[BadgerDog]

Hey Badgerdog, did the Shermans you use have the original sights? My understanding is that the gunner could use his periscope to scan around independent of where the gun was pointing. Is that correct and what were the limits as to how far it could be turned?

I don't know what "original" means in the context of the M4A2E8 version of the Sherman I trained on...

Sighting telescope was zeroed at 10x10 foot target at 1,000 yards (exactly measured), using “thread” taped in a cross pattern to front of barrel and sighting down the bore physically. Once done, it and the the Coaxial Browning .30 MG is aligned with wrenches to the same sight picture to master weapon (76mm).

The sighting telescope in all our Shermans I trained on was "fixed" to that zeroing technique and the only way I (as a gunner) could scan, was to move the turret laterally with my hand wheel (power traverse wasn't granular enough for small movements) or elevate and depress the gun (and coax) with manual hand wheel.

Regards,

Doug

[BadgerDog]

Ian, you are not wrong. In fact I bet in a real tank that the loader, radio operator, and driver rarely, if ever, are actively on the look out for enemy tanks. The loader maybe more than the other two, but when the tank is actively engaging enemy armor he too should be taken out of the mix for spotting.

The main spotting assets are in the turret, that is the gunner and the TC, the loader as well when the tank isn't firing its gun.

Bil

100% correct Bill ...

The driver and the bow gunner were rarely tasked to be scanning for targets. If they were, it meant we were in really deep doo doo and sitting exposed. The primary role of the driver was to end up in a "hull down" and therefore he and the bow gunner were only seeing "grass and dirt" through their peri's.

If I was seeing open ground through my peri, I would catch sh$$ from the CC over the IC with lots of yelling until I sought out and pulled up into a position where my view was blocked. I'd usually spend hours in that kind of a position either napping or eating.

As a loader OP, you were so busy ensuring the Coax was filled with .30, the ready bins were full of the right mix of AP, HE and smoke for the mission, and the inside of the turret metal around you was wiped as clean as you get it so the "ring of fire" that went round the inside of the turret when a round went off and was ejected, didn't catch that surface, or some loose article on fire as well.

I certainly didn't have time to be freakin scanning. That was the CC's primary job, along with his gunner.

Regards,

Doug

[HistoryLover]

Ian Leslie,

this is also my main concern but to narrow the problem down, we must exclude as many variables as possible. So if only the TCs remain for spotting and the hd TC cannot see a big silhoutte faster and better than the free standing TC the hd object, then this is more indicative where to look.

And it maybe already narrows it down to the main problem. The spotting ability of the TCs.